Criminal Case No.

1-215/06 VERDICT ON BEHALF OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Moscow 12 July 2006

Presnenskiy district court, Moscow, comprised of: Presiding Federal Judge Vasyuchenko T.M., with the participation of the State Prosecutor Deputy Inter-District Prosecutor for Presnenskiy, Moscow and Junior Justice Councillor Voshchinskiy M.V., defence counsels: Khabryankin A.V. (defending Klyuyev D.V.), presenting authorisation No. 19 A 28, attorneys licence No. 2635, Sustatov S.M. (defending Steganova A.Ye.), presenting attorneys licence No. 3668, authorisation No. 725, Artamonova Ye.P. (defending Zhlobitsky I.L.), presenting attorneys licence No. 288, authorisation No. 328, Larina V.F. (defending Voronkov O.Yu.), presenting attorneys licence No. 3772, authorisation No. 187, Kirsanov V.M. (defending Pechkin A. N.), presenting attorneys licence No. 1928, authorisation No. 12, in the presence of the Clerk of Court Kiselkova O.Yu. having examined in an open court hearing the criminal case file in respect of: Klyuyev Dmitriy Vladislavovich, date of birth 10 August 1967, born in Moscow, registered at the address: Apt. 111, 28 ul. Khamovnicheskiy Val, Moscow, citizen of Russia, with higher education, two minor children, employed as general director of Satellite Consulting Centre LLC, liable for military service, with no previous convictions, Zhlobitskiy Igor Leonidovich, date of birth 27 August 1965, born in Potsdam, registered at the address: Apt. 127, Block 1, 6 ul. Pechorskaya, Moscow, citizen of the Russian Federation, with higher education, two minor children, employed as chairman of the board of CB (Commercial Bank) Universal Savings Bank LLC, liable for military service, with no previous convictions, Steganova Alevtina Yevgenyevna, date of birth 20 January 1963, born in Manyukhino village, Mytishchinskiy district, Moscow Region, registered at the address: Apt. 25, 58 A ul. Baumanskaya, Moscow, citizen of the Russian Federation, with higher education, employed at CB Universal Savings Bank LLC, acting head accountant, not liable for military service, with no previous convictions, Voronkov Oleg Yurevich, date of birth 27 September 1970, born in Bolshoye Kozino village, Balakhninskiy district, Gorkovskaya Region, registered at the address: Apt. 6, 10 Strelbishchenskiy per., Moscow, in fact residing at the address: ul. Trekhgorniy Val, Moscow, citizen of the Russian Federation, with higher education, one minor child, employed as assistant chairman on the liquidation committee of Roseltrans JSC (Joint-Stock Company), liable for military service, with no previous convictions, [signature]

2
Pechkin Aleksei Nikolaevich, date of birth 6 September 1964, born in Aralturgai village, Karabutinskiy district, Aktyubinskaya Region, registered at the address: Apt. 79, 4 A ul. Leningradskaya, Podolsk, Moscow Region, in fact residing at the address: Apt. 124, 10 ul. Lenina, Istra, Moscow Region, citizen of the Russian Federation, with higher education, one minor child, employed as a fisheries officer in Timiryazev Academy, liable for military service, with no previous convictions, accused of the commission of a crime under Articles 30(3), 159(4) RF Criminal Code, FOUND: Klyuyev D.V. is guilty of organising to cause pecuniary damage to the property owner by means of deception, in the absence of indicia of large-scale embezzlement, by a group of persons by prior collusion. Zhlobitskiy and Steganova are guilty of aiding and abetting the causing of pecuniary damage to the property owner through deception, in the absence of indicia of large-scale embezzlement, by a group of persons by prior collusion. Voronkov and Pechkin are guilty of aiding and abetting the causing of pecuniary damage to the property owner through deception, in the absence of indicia of large-scale embezzlement, by a group of persons by prior collusion. Voronkov is guilty of aiding and abetting the use of a document known to be forged. Pechkin is guilty of using a document known to be forged. The crimes were committed in the following circumstances. Klyuyev D.V., the general director of Chelter LLC, in December 2004 in Moscow (the exact time and place have not been established by the investigation), acting by prior collusion with a person against whom a case has been brought in a separate proceeding, for the purpose of the implementation of a criminal plan intended to cause damage to the property of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC (Open Joint-Stock Company) by unlawful seizure of shares of this Open Joint-Stock Company, planning to receive payment in the amount of RUR 52,130,000 for organising the seizure of shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC and acting from mercenary motives, in December 2004 in Moscow (the exact time and place have not been established by the investigation) organised the commission of said crime, selecting accomplices and allocating roles to them, specifically: He (Klyuyev) gave an instruction to his assistant and colleague at Chelter LLC, Albayev S.A. to organise the seizure of shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC; for the same purpose, he (Klyuyev) proposed to Zhlobitskiy I.L., Chairman of the Board of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC, to consider the issuance of two bank guarantees to the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp. for the amount of RUR 3,140,384 and RUR 3,126,168. [signature]

3
Zhlobitskiy I.L., at the end of December 2004 when at the premises of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC at the address: Block 11, 1 Partiyniy per., Moscow, gave Steganova A.Ye. an instruction to sign bank guarantees on his (Zhlobitskiys) behalf, prepared by him previously for the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp., dated 28 December 2004 for the sum of RUR 3,140,384 and 31 December 2004 for the sum of RUR 3,126,168 and to issue them to a person not identified by the investigation. In turn, Steganova A.Ye., acting at the instruction of Zhlobitskiy I.L., on 28 and 31 December 2004, when at the premises of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC at the address: Block 11, 1 Partiyniy per., Moscow, signed on behalf of Zhlobitskiy I.L. and issued to a person not identified by the investigation the aforesaid bank guarantees of 28 December 2004 for the sum of RUR 3,140,384 and 31 December 2004 for the sum of RUR 3,126,168, the issuance of which, according to the findings of a commercial legal expert review, did not comply with the requirements of internal bank regulations and the agreements to issue the bank guarantees and the guarantees themselves were signed improperly by the chairman of the board and the head accountant; there was also failure to comply with the procedure for issuance of said bank guarantees, which was used in contravention of commercial practice and customary business relations in the banking system of the Russian Federation. For the purpose of implementing the criminal plan, Albayev, with the assistance of citizen Pavlov, who was unaware of his criminal intentions, selected two other accomplices, Pechkin and Voronkov, whose roles were allocated as follows: For a certain monetary remuneration, Pechkin was to obtain court documents by using a passport known to be forged, in the name of citizen Sorokin V.A., and a forged power of attorney in his (Sorokins) name. Voronkov, a professional lawyer, was to accompany Pechkin to provide him with assistance and the necessary legal advice in obtaining the court documents. Acting for these purposes, Albayev provided Pechkin A.N. with the necessary set of forged documents: Passport Series 6801 No. 303305 in the name of Sorokin V.A. with a photograph of Pechkin V.A. glued into it and a forged power of attorney of 24 December 2004 in the name of Sorokin V.A., allegedly issued by the director of the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp., R. Carpenter, for representation of the companys interests in court, having passed these forged documents to Pechkin A.N. through Pavlov A.A., who was not aware of his (Albayevs) criminal intent. Pechkin A.N., using the forged passport passed to him earlier by Albayev A.S. in the name of Sorokin V.A. with his (Pechkins) photograph glued into it and the forged power of attorney in the name of Sorokin V.A., allegedly issued by the director of the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp., R. Carpenter, for representation of the companys interests in court, arrived in Rostov-on-Don on 30 December 2004 together with Voronkov O.Yu. Pechkin, having appeared on that day at the premises of Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court and having presented the forged passport and power of attorney in the name of Sorokin V.A. to the Clerks Office, obtained the aforesaid ruling of 30 December 2004 in Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court to impose seizure on shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC and a corresponding writ of execution, signing for this on behalf of Sorokin V.A. when receiving these documents. On 11 January 2005, Pechkin A.N., making himself out to be the representative of the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp., Sorokin V.A., having in his possession an unlawfully obtained ruling of Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court of 30 December 2004 to impose seizure on shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC and a corresponding writ of execution, and also the forged passport and power of attorney in the name of [signature]

4
Sorokin V.A., submitted to the 1st inter-district division of the Federal Court Bailiffs Service Head Office (GUFSSP) for Moscow an application in his (Sorokins) name to initiate enforcement proceedings and impose seizure on shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, having presented as confirmation of his authority the relevant writ of execution from Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court of 30 December 2004 and also the forged passport and power of attorney in the name of Sorokin A.V. On the basis of said forged documents and the writ of execution, on 11 January 2005 the court bailiff Kalugin A.A. initiated enforcement proceeding No. 4226/11/05. On 12 January 2005 at about 11:00, Voronkov O.Yu. and Pechkin A.N., making himself out to be the representative of the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp., Sorokin V.A., with the participation of the court bailiff Kalugin A.A. and other officers of the 1st interdistrict division of Federal Court Bailiffs Service Head Office for Moscow, who were unaware of the criminal intent of Pechkin and Voronkov, arrived at the premises of ING Bank (Eurasia) CJSC (Closed Joint-Stock Company) at the address: 31 ul. Krasnaya Presnya, where the court bailiff Kalugin A.A. imposed seizure on 6,039,200 ordinary nominal uncertified shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC with a nominal value of RUR 0.25 each, belonging to the companies CG Capital LLC, Belform Holdings Limited, Garvald Investment[s] Limited, Kilmory Services Limited, Leyland Investment[s] Limited, Parkeston Holdings Limited, and Ternhill Investment[s] Limited. On 18 January 2005, a ruling of Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court reversed a ruling of 30 December 2004 to grant interim relief in the form of seizure of shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, in connection with the filing of a petition in Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court by ING Bank (Eurasia) CJSC to rescind the order for interim relief, which stated that the respondent (TerraSoft LLC) does not own shares in Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC. On 19 January 2005, pursuant to the Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court ruling of 18 January 2005, the court bailiff of the 1st inter-district division of Federal Court Bailiffs Service Head Office for Moscow, Pilshchikov A.A., rescinded the seizure imposed on 12 January 2005 on 6,039,200 ordinary nominal uncertified shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC by the court bailiff Kalugin A.A. As a result of the actions of said persons, which entailed seizure of ordinary nominal uncertified shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC with a nominal value of RUR 0.25 each, belonging to the companies CG Capital LLC, Belform Holdings Limited, Garvald Investment[s] Limited, Kilmory Services Limited, Leyland Investment[s] Limited, Parkeston Holdings Limited, and Ternhill Investment[s] Limited, in the quantity of 6,039,200 items with a nominal value of RUR 0.25 each, amounting to a total sum of RUR 1,509,800, which was reported in the Russian and European media, Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC sustained pecuniary damage, which, according to an economic expert opinion, amounted to RUR 729,496.50, that is, in a large amount. The defendant Klyuyev D.V. pleads not guilty and has testified to the court that neither he, nor his colleagues intended either to embezzle shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC or Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC itself. There is no evidence in the case file attesting to their fraud. Since the end of the year 2000 he has been engaged in an auditing business, which includes keeping the accounts of other firms, on a contractual basis, and optimization of taxation. He became acquainted with Steganova A.Ye. in the conduct of his business at the end of 20002002 [sic]; she was the chief auditor and [signature]

5
conducted audits of other companies on a contractual basis. In November or October she transferred to work in the CB (Commercial Bank) [Universal Savings Bank] where she performed the duties of head accountant. A common friend introduced them to Zhlobitskiy I.L. in about 2004, as at that time he was planning to try himself out in the banking business sector and was looking for a chairman of the board for a bank. He became acquainted with Voronkov in about 2004, he was conducting an audit of Roseltrans OJSC and Voronkov was advising this company on legal matters. His relationships with all the persons listed above were work relations. He was not acquainted with Pechkin; he saw him for the first time in the court room. He became acquainted with Kiselev Oleg in the year 2004 on one of his tourist trips to Austria. Their relationship was friendly. He has had business relations with the company Renaissance Capital for a long time; they have executed joint projects, for which he received payment on a contractual basis. In mid-December 2004 he had a meeting with Kiselev, related to business, where they discussed various projects; during the conversation Kiselev asked him to provide assistance in the issuance of bank guarantees for some legal entities; he did not specify precisely which ones. He (Klyuyev) did not attach great significance to this, since this transaction was not expected to provide a large amount of income for the bank and was a typical transaction. Several days later, he recalled Kiselevs request and either met with or phoned Zhlobitskiy, who was Chairman of the Board of CB Universal Savings Bank at that time and he passed this request on to him, but without specifying why he needed the bank guarantees. Zhlobitskiy explained that a bank guarantee could be considered by the bank only if all documents relating to the firms wishing to obtain them complied with the bank regulations and operative legislation. He (Klyuyev) did not tell him for what purpose this bank guarantee was being issued. As he was leaving the Russian Federation on holiday until mid-January, he asked one of his colleagues, Albayev Sergei, to check whether it was possible for the bank to issue these guarantees and he explained to Albayev that if any complex legal issues arose, he could contact staff at the law firm Tekhnologiya Prava [Legal Method], which was occupying part of the premises at his office at that time, due to refurbishment, because their office was being refurbished [sic]. While he was away on leave, he phoned colleagues in his own firm several times, including Albayev, who told him about the projects being implemented. He (Klyuyev) inquired about the situation with issuance of the bank guarantees, regarding which Albayev explained that there were some problems and the request had proved to be somewhat broader. As this was not a key issue, he did not ask for any clarification on the matter. On the first working day, Albayev reported to him on all projects and handed him a package, explaining that it contained everything relating to the bank guarantees. Not attaching great significance to this, on the following day during a meeting with Kiselev, after discussing various matters, he gave him the package, without going into detail about its contents, as he believed that these were legal copies of the firms documents with photocopies of the bank guarantee. Late in the month, approximately after 20 February, to his astonishment, he (Klyuyev) found an article in a newspaper in which his bank was mentioned. Worried, he phoned Kiselev, but the latter explained to him that he would clarify everything first and then he would give him (Klyuyev) an explanation. Subsequently he learned that a search or seizure had been conducted at the bank in connection with this matter, as a result of which Zhlobitskiy had been questioned and detainedarrested. Some time later a search was conducted at his company and, automatically drawing a comparison with the search at the bank and its outcome, he was in a depressed state. From the media, the internet, and also the television programme, The Honest Detective, he learned that he and employees of his firm were suspected of attempting to embezzle Mikhailovskiy GOK. He could not obtain any clarification of this matter from Kiselev, as his mobile phone was switched off and he did not

[signature]

6
appear in his office. Immediately after their first and only conversation, Albayev disappeared from the office, but phoned him back some time later and said that he needed a break, for an indefinite time, in view of the situation that had developed. In a depressed state and realizing that the situation was completely hopeless, and also the role clearly attributed to him by the media as the organiser of the embezzlement of Mikhailovskiy GOK, he phoned the investigating officer, Golyshev, in early August and went to the Main Investigations Department (GSU), where he made a witness statement. He made the statement in a depressed state; realizing that employees of his firm were under arrest in connection with this matter and understanding the public outcry over this situation, he identified himself to some degree with the role attributed to him by the media. From his verbal conversation [sic] with the investigator he understood the gravity and serious nature of the investigation. He (Klyuyev) tried to prove to the investigator that in issuing the bank guarantee, Zhlobitskiy had not even thought about its future purpose, but all his efforts were in vain. Subsequently, with his morale low and finding himself without a lawyer, he gave a witness statement, after which he was released on recognizance not to leave. When questioned as an accused during the preliminary investigation, with the participation of his defence counsel, Khabryankin, Klyuyev D.V. gave different testimony, specifically: He explained to the investigator that in December 2004 he had agreed to a proposal of the president of Renaissance Capital CJSC, Kiselev O.V., to organise seizure of the shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC for remuneration. However, he did not personally pursue the objective to embezzle these shares. He does not know what specific objectives Kiselev was pursuing. Kiselev O.V. did not explain to him (Klyuyev) why he needed seizure of these shares and he himself did not ask. Thereafter, as he himself was going away on leave, he simply re-assigned the task of organising the seizure of shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC to his assistant, Albayev S.A., and also instructed the chairman of the board of CB Universal Savings Bank, Zhlobitskiy I.L., to issue two bank guarantees for this purpose. However, he did not form any organised criminal group, did not collude with anyone to embezzle these shares and had no dealings at all in this matter with any persons directly involved in matters relating to seizure of the shares. The entire procedure of seizure of these shares, including finding the means to impose seizure on the shares, was implemented and controlled by Albayev S.A. without his (Klyuyevs) participation (volume 26, pages 1921). The defendant Zhlobitskiy I.L. pleads not guilty to the alleged criminal act, and regarding the substance of the charge against him, explained to the court that of those present in the courtroom, he is acquainted with Steganov and with Klyuyev. He did not know either Pechkin or Voronkov, or Albayev. On 3 November 2004, he was appointed to the position of chairman of the board by a decision of the Board of Directors of USB [Universal Savings Bank]. Steganova was appointed to the post of acting head accountant. The bank was in a semi-operational state. The bank had no legal department, no security service, and no financial supervision. There were few clients; the principal clients were the founders; every client was fundamentally important; they came mainly on the recommendation of the company Chelter. After 20 December 2004 Klyuyev phoned him and said that he was sending a client who needed a bank guarantee. About two days later, a certain Sorokin appeared, presenting himself as the representative of the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp., which was non-resident, and explained that they needed to obtain 2 bank guarantees for court proceedings (he definitely remembers that it was not the Sorokin who was questioned in the court and not Pechkin, who is sitting in the dock). He (Zhlobitskiy) explained to the client what documents were needed and also explained the terms for obtaining the bank guarantees, namely, that they were 100% coverage [signature]

7
of the guarantees and a payment to the bank in the amount of 5.5% of the sum of the guarantees. These are commonly accepted market terms. These terms suited the client and this was advantageous for the bank, as there were few transactions and the commission was high. They agreed to meet two days later, as the issuance of a bank guarantee had to be discussed in the credit committee. At that time, there were three members on the committee: he (Zhlobitskiy), Steganova, and Bogdanov. He reported the proposal received to all the committee members, then they held a meeting and took a decision to provide the bank guarantee. The committee meeting was attended by all members and they voted unanimously to provide the bank guarantee. The package of documents presented by Sorokin included all the documents required for its issuance. After taking an affirmative decision through the customary procedure, they drafted agreements on the provision of the guarantee and compiled the required set of documents. Some time later, Sorokin arrived and the agreements were signed by the bank, but Sorokin did not have the seal with him, so he said that he would take the documents to get them stamped with the Chelter seal and bring them back. They had no objections, since they were not intending to issue a guarantee at that point, as they were waiting for the funds transfer5.5%. The client promised to bring them payment orders to transfer this commission to the bank, together with the signed agreements. When he came to collect the documents for the firm Terra Soft [sic], he immediately began a discussion about issuing another guarantee for the same amount. As they had initially discussed issuing two bank guarantees, they prepared another credit committee decision and similar agreements; when Sorokin left, he prepared two bank guarantees and as it was coming up to the New Year and he was often away from the bank, he handed the file on these guarantees together with the guarantees and memoranda of association to Steganova, informing her in advance that Sorokin might arrive. He also instructed Steganova and Bogdanov to handle the accounts procedure for these bank guarantees, as they were being issued to a non-resident and the bank had not previously issued guarantees to non-residents. On New Years Eve, 31 December 2005 [sic], he was signing the bank documents that had accumulated and realised that there were instructions to make accounting records of the bank guarantees. He asked Steg[a]nova whether the client had brought in the signed agreements and she confirmed that the agreements had been brought in and also copi[es] of payment orders to transfer the commissions. At that point the bank had already received the commission. Steganova also said that she had signed these guarantees and given them to the client, who had requested this pursuant to powers of attorney allegedly held by him. Given that all the credit committee decisions had been signed, the agreements had been drawn up and signed by both parties, and the bank had received the commission, she signed these guarantees. This surprised him because he had not given the relevant instructions, but he believes that Steganova acted in accordance with the prevailing situation. He had issued her a power of attorney to sign these guarantees, considering that in any case the client had to contact the bank to obtain this power of attorney, since without them [sic] and without a card with sample signatures, which had not been handed over to him, he could not present the bank guarantees. Bogdanov and Steganova reported to him that the guarantees had been entered in the accounting records [and] were shown in the banks balance sheet in accordance with Russian Federation Central Bank regulations. Under the terms of the agreement, the client had to transfer 100% coverage of the guarantee within one month, that is, by the end of January. These actions of the bank were recorded in due time in the accounting balance sheet. In about mid-January the head of the finance supervision department contacted him and she explained that, in accordance with Central Bank regulations, he must fill in a questionnaire on the client; he began to phone the number left by Sorokin, but could not get through. He himself phoned Chelter and, in an attempt to locate him, described the situation, explaining also that because of this the bank might have problems with the Central Bank and they might be fined. [signature]

8
Several days later, a courier arrived, collected the questionnaire and brought it back a day later, already signed. Some time after 20 January an article appeared in a newspaper, reporting that shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC had been seized and a bank guarantee of Universal Savings Bank had been used; as he could not contact Sorokin at the registered address of Colchecter Group Trading Corp., letters were also sent to Sorokins home address with a request to transfer the covering funds and clarify the situation. As no replies followed and the deadline for transfer of the covering funds expired on 31 January, after 34 days, they filed a suit in Moscow City Arbitrazh Court, seeking to declare this transaction void. Starting from February, the bank received requests from the law enforcement agencies to provide all available information, which they did. A search was conducted at the bank, as result of which documents relating to the issuance of the bank guarantee were seized; at the present time he still does not understand what violations were found by the investigation agencies. The bank guarantees were provided in accordance with the operative legislation, statutes, and Central Bank instructions. The defendant Steganova A.Ye., examined during the court hearing, pleads not guilty and has explained to the court that she has known Klyuyev since the end of 2002, as she found work at the firm where Klyuyev was the director. She became acquainted with Zhlobitskiy in the summer of 2004; she does not know any of the other defendants. On 28 December 2004, a credit committee meeting was held, attended by Zhlobitskiy, herself, and the banks Deputy Chairman, Bogdanov. The issuance of a bank guarantee to Colchecter Group Trading Corp. was discussed. At the meeting, the chairman of the board, Zhlobitskiy, presented a report. He gave an evaluation of the firm, saying that it was a good, sound firm which could not only significantly increase the banks turnover and bring in additional clients, but also obtain revenue in the form of a commission for the bank guarantee. A set of documents was also presented. They took a decision to issue the bank guarantee. The members of the credit committee had no objections and they all voted unanimously. The documents were signed on this day: the agreement, supplementary agreement, and certificates. As it was New Years Eve, the chairman of the board, Zhlobitskiy, also wished festive greetings to the clients; he came into my office, handed the documents to me and said that if the client needed guarantees, then she [sic] could issue them. On the same day, a representative of Colchecter Group Trading Corp. requested the guarantee; since the decision had been taken and there were no objections, she issued the guarantee. However, she did not sign a receipt on behalf of the head accountant, as she had signed for the chairman of the board and there was no provision for the head accountants signature on the form. The defendant Voronkov O.Yu., examined during the court hearing, pleads not guilty and has explained to the court that, as at 29 December 2004, he was acquainted with Klyuyev, who was introduced to him by his acquaintance Pavlov as an investor in a project of the Liquidation Committee of Roseltrans OJSC, where the latter proposed that he work for a time. At the end of December, he cannot recall the date more precisely, he phoned Pavlov and asked him to advise one of the clients on obtaining an Arbitrazh Court ruling to grant interim relief and a writ of execution for this ruling. As there was nothing unusual in such a request and he was contacted on such matters from time to time, he agreed. In the evening of the same day and on the following day, 28 or 29 [December], a person introducing himself as Aleksei came to his office on Fadeyev St. and explained that he [had come] regarding a trip to Rostov to obtain an interim relief order. Pavlov arrived after him, a few minutes later, brought the tickets, a power of attorney, and some other documents relating to this matter. The conversation was brief, as the situation was straightforward and clear, they [signature]

9
talked about the immediate flight to Rostov. They parted with Aleksei in the evening, exchanging telephone numbers first; the tickets were for the morning of 30 December 2004. He dropped in to [collect] Aleksei on the way to the airport in the morning. After they had booked in, at the airport or on board the plane, he got talking with Aleksei, who explained that he was not Sorokin, as shown in the power of attorney from Colchecter Group Trading Corp., but Pechkin A.N., and that he had in fact been asked, instead of the Colchecter Group Trading Corp. representative who had fallen ill, to fly to Rostov with his passport to obtain the ruling. As the situation described did not involve him especially, he refrained from asking any further questions. In Rostov they booked into the Intourist hotel, after which they went to the Arbitrazh Court; at the court, Pechkin went to the Clerks Office and obtained the documents. After Pechkin had collected the ruling and writ of execution from the Clerks Office or from the judges assistant, he (Voronkov) read them through; convinced that a case really had been initiated in the Rostov court and having scanned the documents to check that they were conformant with the law, he believed they were satisfactory and did not require any amendments; he phoned Pavlov and reported that the documents had been obtained. They planned to fly back on the same day, but Pavlov asked him to stay on in Rostov for a day to file a complaint. On 31 December 2004, having arrived at the Arbitrazh [Court] they filed the complaint [against] Terra Soft at the Clerks Office, but they refused to initiate proceedings on the grounds that that the last working day had already closed, so then he had to go to the Clerks Office and persuade them to accept the complaint. They registered the complaint in the Clerks Office on 11 January 2006 [sic], after which they went to the airport and flew to Moscow. No one gave him instructions to serve the writ and he believed that his errand had been completed. When he parted with Pechkin, he did not think he would see him in the near future. On 5 or 6 January, Pavlov phoned him and called in at his home, explaining that he was flying out immediately on leave [and] asked him to get in touch with Pechkin and provide him with assistance in the enforcement of the court judgment obtained in Rostov, to which he (Voronkov) agreed. Pavlov handed him (Voronkov) a package of documents and on the following day, he phoned Pechkin and asked him not leave town, as his participation would be needed in the presentation of the writ of execution. On 11 January 2005 they met up with Pechkin at his office and set off from there to the bailiffs. He knew from Pavlov that the court bailiff Kalugin deals with enforcement of court judgments. When they arrived at the court bailiffs service, they asked for Kalugin. Glancing through the writ of execution, Kalugin explained that he understood the situation, but it would be decided by his superior. After 1.5 2 hours his superior arrived and they [sic] took their passports, together with the writ of execution. He explained that the matter could only be decided on the following day and they needed to arrange for two witnesses to participate in the proceeding and for a vehicle. As Pechkin was unable to obtain a vehicle and witnesses anywhere, he did this himself, asking Tyukayev Yu.I. who worked as a driver at Chelter to be a witness; he also phoned the secretaries at Chelter and asked them to arrange a mini-bus and a driver with a passport for the following day. On the morning of 12 January 2005 they met at the office and were joined there by Tyukayev, Pechkin, and, as he later found out, Sergei. They went in this group to the bailiffs office. When they and Pechkin went up to the bailiffs office, the entire unit who was going to serve the writ came out of the heads office. One of the bailiffs said that the transport issue had been sorted out, but witnesses were needed, and since there were two witnesses, they went to the bank in three cars. At the bank they presented all the documents, starting with the court bailiff enforcing the court judgment. In the presence of bank staff, the bailiffs compiled a certificate of inventory and seizure of the shares, he (Voronkov) read it through and considered it satisfactory, after which the witnesses signed and they left the bank. After the trip to the bank, he phoned Pavlov and reported that the seizure had been imposed. Pavlov said that he needed to fly to Irkutsk that evening and asked to send copies of the documents on this enforcement proceeding to Chelter for him. He went to the bailiffs, obtained copies, and sent them with one of the drivers, Albayev or Tyukayev, to [signature]

10
Chelter. One of them brought him tickets for the night flight to Irkutsk; in the evening they met up with Pechkin and went to the airport. Pavlov told him the telephone number of the person in Irkutsk with whom they would need to check the exact date of filing of the application in the court and find out when the ruling would be ready. When they flew in, they booked into a hotel and tried to phone this person, but he explained to them that the documents at the court were not ready yet and he would phone them back. On 14 January he phoned and they went with Penchkin [sic] to the court, where Pechkin obtained the ruling and the writ of execution; on the following morning they flew to Moscow. A couple of days later, Pavlov phoned and asked them to bring the documents. He (Voronkov) had no further involvement of any kind. He does not agree with the qualification of his actions, as there was no transfer of property to third parties and there could not have been. He provided only advisory assistance of a procedural nature. He received no payment, he was employed on a salary on the liquidation committee of Roseltrans, and when he was accepted for the work, he undertook to carry out instructions, as this was a condition of his employment. The defendant Pechkin A.N., examined during the court hearing, pleads not guilty to the charge and has explained to the court that he did not intend either to seize or embezzle shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK. He performed the duties of a courier while being misled. He was not acquainted with any of the accused prior to the events under consideration. He became acquainted with Voronkov on the day before the trip to Rostov on 29 December 2004. Through a long-term acquaintance, Orlov, he had tried to solve his financial problems and he had proposed to him (Pechkin) that he participate in some firms as a nominal founder, for which he promised USD 300. They went to the office on Novoslobodskaya [St.] [and] made a photocopy of his passport. There were no phone calls for a long time. In mid-December, Orlov asked for his (Pechkins) photograph, without specifying the size. Some time later, someone phoned from the office on Novoslobodskaya; the caller introduced himself as Sergei Albayev; he asked [Pechkin] to come to the office. At the office they proposed that he fly out to Rostov, explaining that an arbitrazh proceeding was going on there and the need had arisen for a person who would fly down there, taking the place of the firms representative who had fallen ill, also explaining that it was not possible to re-do the documents for another person, as the firm was located abroad, that everything was lawful, there was nothing criminal involved, and there would be no consequences for him (Pechkin); they offered him payment in the amount of USD 500; they also promised to provide him with a lawyer who would assist him. On 29 December 2004 Albayev phoned him and said to come to Fadeyev St., where he was introduced to Voronkov; some time later Pavlov joined them; he brought a passport and tickets. The passport, in another persons name, had his (Pechkins) photograph. On the morning of 30 December 2004 Voronkov called in for him at work and they flew to Rostov. At the Rostov court he went to the Clerks Office and submitted the power of attorney and passport in the name of Sorokin; he was sent to another office, where he received the ruling, which he subsequently handed over to Voronkov. On the morning of 31 December 2004, something had to be handed in at the Clerks Office; Voronkov handed everything in and on 31 December 2004 they returned to Moscow. On 6 or 7 January 2005, Voronkov phoned him and said that he needed to come into the office. He understood that there would be a trip to Irkutsk and he did not start asking questions. At the office it turned out that they needed to go to the bailiffs. The bailiff looked at the documents, he (Pechkin) gave him the passport in Sorokins name, while Voronkov talked about the forthcoming case with the head of the bailiffs office. On the following day, Tyukayev and Albayev were at the office; he did not ask them any questions, then they all went to the bailiffs, then to the bank, where he was simply present and did not sign any papers. In the evening of the same day they left for Irkutsk. At the court in Irkutsk he received almost exactly the same papers as in Rostov and handed them over to Voronkov. On returning to Moscow he and Voronkov went to the office on Novoslobodskaya, where he handed over the passport in Sorokins name to Pavlov. After this he [signature]

11
left on a business trip to Belorussia related to his own work, where he stayed for some time. He realized from newspaper reports that he had got involved in some affair and that he had been used; he began to fear for his life and went away to his father in the Orenburg region. In the summer he found out that a programme had been broadcast on television where they had shown his photograph and accused him of fraud. After this, on 13 August, he came to Moscow and went to the Main Investigations Department (GSU); he made a confession statement and was arrested, on the grounds that he might go into hiding. Despite the defendants stated position, their guilt in the commission of the crime established by the court has been proven fully by the body of evidence gathered on the case and examined in the court hearing: By the testimony of counsel for the victim Kryuchkov V.Ye., who explained to the court that he had learned of the attempt to embezzle shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC from the media. His clients were concerned by what had occurred and had written a statement. Subsequently they realized that it was impossible to embezzle the shares. No losses were sustained by these actions. By the witness testimony of Markhanov[a] A.I., who explained to the court that she is employed as a notary; Zhlobitskiy I.L. and Steganova A.Ye. were her clients. She does not now recall the circumstances of her acquaintance with them, as a long time has passed. She confirms the testimony given during the preliminary investigation (volume 3, pages 135 136). As a notary, she certifies documents in the form of copies; they work with any archival documents. If a client presents the original of a document to her, then she has the right to certify a photocopy, even if the basic document was not issued by her. She establishes the authenticity of the original of the document visually and verifies the similarity of the original and the copy. If there is a stamp and signature on the document, then she certifies the copy of this document. A documenta copy of a power of attorney (volume 3, pages 130134) was certified by her on 2 February 2005. The power attorney was issued by the company with the signature of its director. Her task was to compare the original with the copy and certify it. She does not ask clients for what purpose they need a certified copy of the document. By the witness testimony of Zhuravkov A.Yu., who explained to the court that from November 2002 to December 2005 he worked as head of the legal department in the bank [ING] Eurasia. On about 12 January 2005 court bailiffs came to the bank, under the direction of Kalugin, and presented procedural documents: a writ of execution and a seizure order, conformant with the laws on enforcement proceedings and court bailiffs and other regulatory acts. Together with his colleagues, he (Zhuravkov) checked the documents submitted, and in the presence of the court bailiffs and the claimants representative, seizure was imposed on shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC. Their bank subsequently took steps to rescind the order for interim relief. He does not recall whether any of the defendants were present during the seizure.

By the witness testimony of Salikhov A.R., who explained to the court that he was appointed head of the 1st inter-district division of the court bailiffs service for the Central Administrative District of Moscow from 1 January 2005. On 11 January 2005 he was contacted by two representatives of the claimants firm, Colchecter, one of whom was Sorokin, who presented him with enforcement documents of Rostov Region Arbitrazh court, an application with a request to initiate enforcement proceedings, a power of attorney, and a passport. Together with Tetin, he checked the documents, after which a decision was taken to initiate enforcement proceedings in respect of the writ of execution presented. The writ was [signature]

12
to be served immediately; it was issued in late December 2004 by the Court Bailiff of the area where the debtor, the bank [ING] Eurasia, was located; the court bailiff was Kononova, who was absent at that time as she was ill. Her deputies proposed several candidates as bailiffs who could be entrusted with this proceeding and also nominated Kalugin, who was in fact instructed to enforce the court decision. At that time, he (Salikhanov [sic]) did not know that Kalugin was not entitled to initiate this enforcement proceeding, as he did not know there was an order to transfer Kalugin to another division. After enforcement proceedings are initiated to impose seizure, shares cannot be debited from the owners accounts for the entire duration of the seizure. At the state prosecutors request, the witness testimony of Salikhov given during the preliminary investigation was read out (volume 2, pages 110115), as it contained contradictions. Salikhanov [sic] confirmed the testimony given during the preliminary investigation. By the witness testimony of Sorokin V.A., who explained to the court that around July 2003 he lost his passport, drivers licence, and documents for a car belonging to him. He contacted the police regarding this matter. He has not engaged in business and is not a founder of any company. He has not signed documents connected with the business activities of any company. In January 2005 he received documents from a bank, showing that he was allegedly a director of the firm Colchecter Group and must refund a certain sum to the bank, the name of which he does not recall. He handed these letters over to the investigation. By the witness testimony of Sorokina Yu.V., who in the presence of the lawful representative of Sorokin V.A. explained to the court that in late January and early February, near the school, three men came up to her and asked: Wheres your daddy? She replied that he had gone away. She did not know them previously and had not seen them. They asked: When will he return? She replied: Not soon. She remembered one of those who approached her well; he is plump and was dressed in a black leather jacket, with short hair; the second one was very thin and had pock-marks on his face, like scars. She did not remember the third one. A week later they approached her again, asking whether her father had arrived; she answered that he had not. During the investigation, she identified the plump man from a photograph which the investigator showed [her]. These men are not among the accused. By the witness testimony of Plaksin G.N., who explained to the court that at the end of 2004 he was a sole trader and head of the firm Traviata, which was co-founder of a bank. He was a director only on paper; he was paid a salary for the fact that he was. He did not carry out any directors duties, he only placed signatures on technical documents and the minutes of the general meeting. He was also chairman of the board of directors of the bank. He did not sign any financial documents. He has known Zhlobitskiy for about 2 years. Zhlobitskiy was the manager of the bank; he knew that he (Plaksin) was a trained economist and wanted work in his professional occupation. Some time later, the secretary of the bank phoned and asked him to come in. They told him that he would be a director of a firm which was a co-founder of the bank; the name of the firm was either Traviata or Maxima. He signed documents relating to these firms at the notarys office, including documents to open a current account at the bank. Zhlobitskiy spoke with him and told him that as he was the most senior of them all in age and a trained economist, he (Plaksin), would be chairman of the board of directors. He (Plaksin) made it a condition that he would not sign financial documents. He went to the bank [signature]

13
twice, he signed the minutes of the meeting when they elected the head accountant, he does not recall the surname of the accountant, and there were some sort of transfers within the bank. Each time, he read the document; there were no financial documents. He held the post from late December to early January, less than a month. He has known Pechkin for a long time; they are friends. Pechkin had nothing to do with his (Plaksins) appointment to the bank. He has known Orlov since 1983; they are friends. Orlov is acquainted with Zhlobitskiy. Orlov did not propose to him that he become a founder of the firm and he did not sign any documents with him. The charter of the firm Maxima under inspection (volume 18, page 292) has his signatures, which he put [on the document] at the notarys office; Orlov was not present. He does not recall whether he was general director of OstVest LLC; he was not a Founder of the firm Optim Service. On the charter of the firm Maxima under inspection (volume 22, pages 1435), the signatures are not his. He does not know whether he signed documents at Universal [Savings] Bank. He was present when shares in the bank were transferred from one owner to another, but he does not recall the circumstances of the transaction. At the state prosecutors request, the witness testimony of Plaksin given during the preliminary investigation was read out (volume 7, pages 4853), as it contained contradictions. Plaksin confirmed the testimony given during the preliminary investigation and explained that Novokhatskiy sent him and a young woman to the notary. He (Plaksin) signed a power of attorney for some woman, so that she could manage the affairs of some firm on his behalf, as far as he recalls, for the firm Maxima. He met with Zhlobitskiy when signing a share sale and purchase agreement at the bank. He was the chairman of the board of Universal Savings Bank. His (Plaksins) signatures are on the payment order under inspection (volume 19, page 107). He does not recall when he signed this payment order. Up to the present time he (Plaksin) remains chairman of the board of directors and a founder of the firm Maxima. It is not his signature on the Charter under inspection (volume 22, pages 7286); he knows nothing about this firm and he does not know who could have used his details. By the witness testimony of Albayeva O.Yu., who explained to the court that Albayev S.A. was her husband. He served in the KGB until 1991 and worked as a security guard from 1991 to 2003; he was able to earn extra money as a driver. He has not worked since 2003 due to illness. She is not familiar with the firm Chelter. She does not know who Albayev S.A. chauffeured. In 2005, he received a summons and investigators came to see him. Her husband explained to her that this was because he had been called as a witness. She does not know what his departure in March was connected with. She found out from her child that her husband had gone away; she thought that he was in hospital. An unknown person informed her by telephone of her husbands death. It was ascertained later that Albayev S.A. died in Rostov-on-Don. His sister lives in this city. At the state prosecutors request, the court read out the witness testimony of Albayeva O.Yu., given during the investigation (volume 7, pages 106109). The witness Albayeva O.Yu. explained that her husband worked in the firm Chertel [sic]; she did not say as a driver. Her signatures are on the record, but half of the statement has been added. In her presence the record was filled in on half a sheet; the remaining part was blank. In view of this testimony, the witness Albayeva was examined at the state prosecutors request by the witness Kurtov M.N., who explained to the court that he questioned the witness Albayeva during the preliminary investigation, and since she did not appear at the investigations department, it was decided to question her at her place of residence. All the testimony in the record was [signature]

14
written down by him from her words; at the end of the questioning she carefully read through the record, after which she signed it; no comments were received from her. The court sees no reason not to trust the witness testimony of the investigating officer and finds no violations of the law of any kind in the compilation of the record of Albayevas interrogation during the preliminary investigation; however, the court considers that the discrepancies in Albayevas testimony are not significant and do not affect the substance and proof of the charge against the defendants. By the witness testimony of Orlov S.V., who explained to the court that he became acquainted with Voronkov when working on the liquidation committee of Ro[s]eltrans CJSC [sic], as director of regional programmes. He has known Pechkin and Klyuyev for a long time, since the mid-80s. He did not provide Klyuyev with peoples details for the purpose of using them to register legal entities. At Novokhatskiys request, he provided data for registration of legal entities and he himself, as a founder, participated in setting up the bank and brought in Plaksin as a founder. He received money for this; he cannot say the exact amount, equivalent to USD 300 in his opinion. So, together with Plaksin, they founded the firm Maxima. As a founder, he did not engage in business activity. All the firms founded became co-founders of Universal Savings Bank. Novokhatskiy is a lawyer; he prepared documents for the founders and he also dealt with his (Orlovs) firm. He does not know Klyuyevs role in this process, but the firm where Novokhatskiy worked was subordinate to the audit company Chelter. Novokhatskiy was Klyuyevs subordinate. He did not pass on Pechkins details to Klyuyev; he did not provide assistance in the registration of Pechkin as a founder and he was opposed to him, as Pechkin was abusing alcohol at that time. They did not pass on photographs of Pechkin to Klyuyev; he does not know what Pechkin was doing in December 2004. At the state prosecutors request, the witness testimony of Orlov S.V. given by him during the preliminary investigation was read out (volume 7, pages 311), as it contains contradictions. Orlov S.V. fully confirmed the testimony given during the preliminary investigation. In November 2004 Klyuyev proposed that he work for a time on the liquidation committee. At that time, Voronkov had been introduced to him (Orlov) as a lawyer, but not Klyuyev. His friends details were provided by him to Chelter at Klyuyevs request, but he dealt with Novokhatskiy. With regard to the existence of contradictions, Orlov S.V. explained that in the preliminary investigation, he said what the investigator said. By the witness testimony of Golyshev A.V., who explained to the court that in JuneJuly 2005, he conducted the questioning of Orlov as a witness in the presence of a lawyer, in the premises of the remand prison. During questioning orlov [sic] was nervous, as he was a suspect in another case, but no pressure was exerted by him on Orlov. The content of the record matches Orlovs witness statement. By the witness testimony of Klinishev V.V., who explained to the court that in January 2005 he was working as deputy head of the 1st inter-district division of the Federal Court Bailiffs Service Head Office for the Central Administrative District of Moscow. On 11 January 2005 he was in the office of the head of the division, when the claimants representatives presented documents to the senior officers. In view of the fact that there might be resistance, the claimants representatives made a request to call out special enforcers. The head of department requested to call out a unit of special enforcement officers who enforce especially complex court decisions. The director was denied this request. He (Klinishev) was given the task of enforcing the court decision using the [signature]

15
security bailiffs responsible for maintenance of order in judicial proceedings (OUPDS). After this, according to established procedure, the court bailiff Kalugin wrote an application, which was approved by the head of the division and the personnel were then given instructions; then they travelled to the banks known address to enforce the court decision. No resistance was shown at the bank. All those attending were registered by security staff, after which they were asked to go through to a consultation room, where the court bailiff executed the enforcement proceedingseizure of the securities. In addition to the court bailiffs, a representative of the debtor-bank and the claimants representative, Voronkov, took part in the enforcement proceedings. The shares are not documents, they are registered in a book, and the shares were not removed from the bank. By the witness testimony of Petrov E.Yu., employed as a security bailiff at the 1st inter-district division of the Federal Court Bailiffs Service Head Office for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, who explained to the court that in the division on the morning of 12 January 2005, he received special facilities, issued instructions, and put on his uniform, after which they travelled in a Sobol car to the bank [ING] Eurasia. His duties included ensuring the safety of the parties participating in the enforcement proceeding. As far as he recalls, seizure was imposed on shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK. In addition to a representative of the bank and the court bailiffs, the claimants representative, Voronkov, and two persons as witnesses were also present. He believed Voronkov to be the claimants representative, as he was conversing with the court bailiffs regarding the conduct of the enforcement proceedings. By the witness testimony of Zuikov A.V., employed as a court bailiff, who explained to the court that until the end of January 2005 he was employed as a court bailiff of the 1st inter-district division for the Central Administrative District of Moscow. On 12 January 2005, he was told that he was included in an enforcement unit. Together with the security bailiffs, Kalugin and the claimants representatives, he went to the bank, where Kalugin conducted the enforcement proceedings, while he provided technical assistance and compiled an inventory of the seizures. At the bank Kalugin served the order to initiate the enforcement proceeding [writ of execution] and a demand to provide a statement from the depositary register; they compiled an inventory of the seizure and he served an order restricting the rights of the holders of the securities. Voronkov was present during the enforcement proceedings and, from his behaviour, he (Zuikov) drew the conclusion that this was the claimants representative. The shares were not removed, as they were uncertified and remained in the depositary. An order restricting the rights of holders of securities prohibits the transfer of shares and third parties cannot have rights to these shares. By the witness testimony of Korshunov A.V., employed as a security bailiff at the 1st inter-district division of the Federal Court Bailiffs Service Head Office, for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, who explained to the court that on 12 January 2005, during the enforcement proceedings at the bank [ING] Eurasia, his duties included ensuring the physical protection of persons participating in the enforcement proceeding. Having arrived at the bank, they waited for the arrival of the claimants representative, Voronkov, who is among the defendants, and the witnesses. They went into the bank and were taken into a consultation room; he was sometimes there, sometimes in the corridor, and maintained order. By the witness testimony of Lisitsina Yu.M., who explained to the court that until February 2005 she was employed as the personal assistant of Kiselev O., head of the company Renaissance Capital Investment Group. Klyuyev was a partner in the company and had regular dealings with Kiselev, Stephen Jennings and Yury Sagaydak. She did not take part in negotiations. As a long time has passed, she does not recall [signature]

16
what documents she sent to Klyuyevs office. She personally did not converse with Klyuyev on the telephone about the transfer of sums of money. By the witness testimony of Ovechkin S.V., who explained to the court that he knows nothing about the replacement of the banks owner in autumn 2004, as he did not deal with this matter. He does not know who became chairman of the board of directors. At the time of the change of ownership, he contacted Zhlobitskiy, who was carrying out a check [audit and due diligence] on the bank. Documents were received from the Central Bank. The shareholders said to be ready to pass the files on directly to Ratskevich. The bank was run by Ratskevich. By the witness testimony of Khasanova O.Ye., who explained to the court that she worked together with Zhlobitskiy, Steganova, and Klyuyev in Universal Savings Bank, from November 2004. Prior to this, she worked with Steganova in CB (Commercial Bank) Rosinterbank, under her supervision. With Klyuyev, she had worked at Chelter and Infoauditaktiv, where he was a director. The firm Infoauditaktiv was engaged in providing accountancy support for clients, and, as they were auditors, they established a separate line of work, the firm Chelter, which conducted audit reviews. She and Steganova were informed that in order to register the firm Chelter, they would temporarily be founders. The general director was Klyuyev and the firm in fact belonged to him. She was later removed from the body of founders. The firms Chelter and Infoauditaktiv were on ul. Novoslobodskaya, but the departments were in different rooms. Chelter legal defence and consulting centre was located there, but they did not form a single integrated company. Chelter legal defence and consulting centre is a law firm which they, as auditors, consulted for advice and put queries; they sometimes provided them with assistance during audits. Steganova introduced her to Zhlobitskiy in the late summer of 2004, telling her that Zhlobitskiy would be carrying out due diligence of the bank and he would need assistance in the inspection of documents during the acquisition of the bank. He was not a Chelter employee. In October 2004, she was sent to the bank and he asked to see documents related to the banks operation, accounting documents, registers, records, and bank accounts. This was necessary for subsequent acquisition of the bank. As she understood, Klyuyev intended to acquire the bank. Later she learned that the bank had been acquired, but she did not know by whom. Prior to this, in October 2004, she had a conversation with Zhlobitskiy, who said that she could come to work at the bank in the position of head of the financial supervision department. The banks chairman of the board was Ovechkin, but from November 2004, it was Zhlobitskiy. Steganova occupied the post of head accountant. She knows nothing about the circumstances of the issuance of bank guarantees to the firm Colchecter. She had seen the driver Albayev at Chelter. A bank transaction in the form of issuance of a bank guarantee is a lawful transaction, regulated by Federal Law (FL) No. 395 On Credit Organisations and by Article 368 RF Civil Code. By the witness testimony of Butyrskiy A.Yu., who explained to the court that in January 2005 he was employed as a security guard by Interom Private Security Firm (ChOP); they provided services for the bank [ING] Eurasia, which was located at the address: 31 Krasnaya Presnya. On 12 January 2005, 6 court bailiffs and 1 person in civilian clothes came to the bank. The bailiffs said that they were going to take [sic] some sort of documents. They registered them and informed the senior officer on duty. After this, one of the bailiffs went outside and brought in three witnesses. They were also registered. At the state prosecutors request, the witness testimony of Butyrskiy given during the preliminary investigation in respect of photographs shown to him, was read out (volume 8, pages 2023). The witness Butyrskiy confirmed the testimony [that] the person in civilian clothes presented a passport in the name of Sorokin. [signature]

17

By the witness testimony of Bogdanov N.S., who explained to the court that he has worked at Universal Savings Bank as deputy chairman of the board of the bank since May 2004. In December 2004 January 2005 the chairman of the board was Zhlobitskiy I.L. Issuance of a bank guarantee is a normal bank transaction. The [banks] licence permitted a bank guarantee to be issued. When the bank guarantee was provided, he was deputy chairman of the board of the bank, director of the internal supervision service, and issuance of a bank guarantee was not within his competency. At that time, the credit committee was composed of Zhlobitskiy, Steganova A.Ye., Kozhukina, and himself. The credit committee takes a decision by a majority vote. The question of provid[ing] a bank guarantee to the firm Colchecter Group was considered at a meeting of the credit committee; Zhlobitskiy, Steganova A.Ye., and he were present. Kazhukina [sic] was not there. Zhlobitskiy reported for whom the bank guarantee was being provided. From his (Bogdanovs) point of view, the risks in providing the bank guarantee were minimal, and from the legal standpoint, they had a right to issue it. He agreed to the issuance of the bank guarantee. He was reassured by the fact that an agreement had been concluded and the client was transferring the covering funds; this would rule out any risk. For a bank guarantee to be presented to them, such a decision had to be taken by an Arbitrazh Court. There are RF Central Bank regulations that when credit is provided, the bank forms a reserve; the Central Bank sets this at 25%. Cover for a bank guarantee under a supplementary agreement must be in full. In his report, Zhlobitskiy expressed the view that they needed clients and they could subsequently attract funds from this client, which would increase the balances in the current accounts and they would receive revenue from the issuance of the bank guarantee. A second meeting was held on 30 December 2004; they had gained a clear understanding of the client from making inquiries. Before this, the structure of the issuance had been discussed and, in principle, the issuance did not differ in any way from the first. The amount of the payment [was] security for the bank guarantee. In both the first and second case, the client was the firm Colchecter. The beneficiary for the first bank guarantee was the firm Terosoft [sic]; for the second it was Shimlen. A bank guarantee indicates clearly to whom it is issued and why. And they do not trace its subsequent movements. The Central Bank carried out a comprehensive check, in which the issuance of the bank guarantee was considered. The bank received a profit of 5.5% on the two bank guarantees. No damage was sustained. By the witness testimony of Karaseva T.A., who explained to the court that in November 2004January 2005 she was working at Universal Savings Bank as the head of department for national currency accounts. The director of the bank at that time was Zhlobitskiy. She does not know the reason for the replacement of the director. She does not know about the issuance of a bank guarantee to the firm Colchecter. By the witness testimony of Bibikova M.V., who explained to the court that Pechkin is her de facto husband. He is kind, able-bodied, loves sport, has a high regard for [his profession] fisheries. He worked in his professional occupation at the [fisheries] academy at Timiryazev Ponds. In December 2004 Plaksin [sic] did not leave Moscow. At the state prosecutors request, the witness testimony of Bibikova given during the investigation was read out, as it contained significant contradictions (volume 24, pages 204 206). The witness Bibikova M.V. confirmed the testimony given during the preliminary investigation and explained that she was mistaken about Saint Petersburg. Pechkin had been in a clinic for nervous conditions, diagnosed with chronic fatigue. By the witness testimony of Ovechkin S.M., who explained to the court that at the end of 2004 he was in military service in the Taman division. The companies Ariana [sic] [signature]

18

Trading and Rosner are unknown to him. In the autumn of the year 2004, he lost his passport, but immediately obtained a new one. By the witness testimony of Pomaskin A.A., who explained to the court that on 12 January 2005, he was at the bank. When the bailiffs arrived, accompanied by a large number of people, they were all registered. Kalugin presented the documents; he checked the documents only with him. After this, the bailiffs served the order, which was handed over to the lawyer. He phoned the bailiffs service and found out that they really were employed as bailiffs. He did not ascertain who the civilians were that accompanied the bailiffs. They were not present during the enforcement proceedings. By the witness testimony of Klepachev S.I., who explained to the court that he has worked as a judge of Rostov Arbitrazh Court since 15 June 1999. On 29 December 2004 he received a statement of claim from the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp., which is domiciled in the Bahama islands; the respondent in this claim was the company Terra Soft LLC, and there was also [a petition] for interim relief, in the form of seizure. On 29 or 30 December he handed down a ruling to impose seizure on shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK. In accordance with Arbitrazh Court procedure, the ruling and writ of execution were issued through the Clerks Office of the Arbitrazh Court. A ruling to initiate proceedings in the claim was handed down on 29 December and a preliminary court hearing was set for 27 June 2005. On 30 December 2005, in accordance with the RF Code of Arbitrazh Procedure, he handed down a ruling to impose seizure. Some time later an appeal complaint was lodged; the court of appeal requested the case file and it was not returned to him. On 14 January 2005 he received a petition from the general director of ING Bank (Eurasia) CJSC to which documents were attached, indicating that on 12 January 2005 the shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK did not belong to Terra Soft LLC. On 18 January 2005, he examined this petition and the order for seizure of the shares was rescinded. He also received a statement from the Moscow bailiffs with a request to clarify their actions with the writ of execution. He saw neither the claimant, nor the respondent in this case. He set a preliminary hearing for 27 June 2005, in view of the fact that the claimant was a non-resident and he needed to notify the litigants through the Ministry of Justice. In the situation concerning the claim of the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp., it was necessary for him to impose seizure. The law did not deprive the interested party of the right to apply to the court to rescind the seizure order, as occurred on 14 January 2005. He did not have an opportunity to verify the particulars of the true owners of the shares, since a change of ownership could happen even over 2 days. A seizure immediately becomes common knowledge and the court receives petitions concerning the true owners, which did not happen in this case. Seizure essentially means that it was impossible to realize and sell the shares. After seizure is imposed, the real owner is not deprived of the ability to use the shares at its own discretion; the prohibition relates only to assignment of the shares. After these events, he was punished with disciplinary action and the judges evaluation panel rescinded his powers before the end of his term. It was not possible to file a claim for shares which did not belong to the respondent. Also, in the statement of claim, the respondent indicated the bank holding these shares, which was summoned to the preliminary hearing; it is impossible to hear a claim without notifying the respondent. In assessing the witness testimony of Klepachev on the lawfulness of his actions in imposing seizure, the court takes into consideration the ruling of the Russian Federation Supreme Court of 22 June 2005 on Klepachevs appeal seeking to reverse the decision by the judges evaluation panel for Rostov Region to rescind his powers before the end of his term in connection with a disciplinary offence, which found that the statement of claim of Colchecter Group Trading Corp. against Terra Soft LLC (Rostov on Don) and ING BANK

[signature]

19
(Eurasia) CJSC (Moscow) to order enforcement of an agreement on sale and purchase of securities, 6,039,200 shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, was not conformant with the requirements of Articles 125(5), 126, and 76 RF Code of Arbitrazh Procedure; therefore, under Article 128 RF Code of Arbitrazh Procedure, the judge should have abandoned the claim, which he did not do; furthermore, the judge imposed seizure on the shares without identifying the owner, which resulted in the blocking of transactions on the entire account the depositary of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, in respect of all the shareholders, whereby the rights of the true holders the shares were violated. The court finds that the conclusions set forth in this Supreme Court ruling are lawful and proper, showing that seizure was imposed on these shares in violation of the operative legislation. By the witness testimony of Prokhorov D.A., examined at the state prosecutors request, who explained to the court that he works as a senior investigator of the Investigations Department under the Main Department of Internal Affairs (GUVD), Moscow and at the instruction of the senior investigating officer Golyshev, who was the director of the investigations team and conducted the search of Kiselevs office at the address indicated in the order. Documents relating to the case were found in an envelope in one of the cabinets in his office. In addition, with Kiselevs consent, the search commenced 2030 minutes before he himself arrived. The envelope found was shown to all persons present at the search. At the end of the search, Kiselev inspected the record and made no comments. With regard to the criminal plan discovered at Kiselevs [office], he [Kiselev] explained that he has nothing to do with this document and he does not know its origin. By the witness testimony of Ocheretina Ye.S., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that she worked as a stenographer at the Clerks Office of Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court. Her duties [included] receiving documents filed at the Arbitrazh Court, registering them and also supervising the dispatch of outgoing correspondence. On 31 December 2004 at about 11:00, a man came to the Clerks Office, holding a writ of execution of Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court to impose seizure on shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, relating to the claim of the firm Colchecter Group Trading Corp. He presented this writ of execution to the staff of the Clerks Office and requested that it be registered and stamped with the heraldic seal. This man presented himself as the claimants representative, Sorokin V.A. After registering the writ of execution, he signed the register of writs of execution, in the name of Sorokin V.A. and left, taking this writ with him; I have never seen this man again. All the time that he was in the Clerks Office, he was alone and did not associate with anyone (volume 5, pages 2527). By the witness testimony of Zakharova L.A., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, who explained to the court that she has worked as a judge of Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court since 1992 and has worked as a court of appeal judge since 1995. Her duties include hearing arbitrazh cases in which the litigants have lodged appeals. Appeals are filed by litigants with a judge of the lower court and they, in turn, refer the case and the appeal complaint to the court of appeal. When an appeal complaint is considered, three types of decision are takenthe appeal is either abandoned with no further action, returned to the appellant or proceedings are initiated and a date is set for hearing the appeal. These decisions on the appeal [signature]

20
complaint are handed down within five days from receipt of the complaint. Appeal complaints are allocated to the court of appeal judges by the chairman of the bench. On 30 December 2004 an arbitrazh case was received by her me [sic] together with an appeal complaint from Terra Soft LLC against the ruling of Judge Klepachev S.I. to initiate proceedings in an arbitrazh case relating to the claim of the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp. against Terra Soft LLC. The ruling to initiate proceedings in the case was handed down by Judge Klepachev S.I. on 29 December 2004. On that day I handed down a ruling on this appeal to return the appeal to the appellant, as it had been filed against a type of court judgment (a ruling to initiate proceedings in the case) which, under the RF Code of Arbitrazh Procedure, is not appealed through an arbitrazh proceeding. After my examination of the appeal, the case was referred back to the lower court for further hearing (volume 5, pages 6264). By the witness testimony of Zabolotkin A.N., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that he is a founder and director of some firm, he does not know which precisely. About two years ago he became acquainted with Orlov Sergei, whom he often saw at the company where he worked. Approximately in the late Springearly Summer of 2004, on one of his visits Orlov proposed to him that, on a paid basis, he become and thereafter be listed as a director of a firm, [he does not know] which precisely, to which he agreed, as he had financial problems; Orlov explained that it would all be straight with nothing criminal involved, all taxes would be paid, and if necessary, he would need to put in an appearance to certify the fact that he is a director, promising to pay him USD 250 per month for this. Twice he was called to the office, which was located at Novoslobodskaya metro station and he signed some documents, it is hard to say what exactly; he was also once called to the tax inspectorate and also to UBEP [Department for Control of Economic Crimes], where he provided explanations regarding the firms activities, in discussions with police officers, and he realized that the firm in which he was a director was engaged in supplying electronic equipment and domestic appliances. He knows nothing about the activities of this firm. He has not signed any documents related to transactions executed by this firm. At the tax inspectorate or at UBEP he saw documents with a signature in his name, which had been copied. As the nominal general director of Brainstorm LLC he did not participate in the transaction relating to the acquisition by this firm of an interest in CB Universal Savings Bank LLC. He is acquainted with Samedov, to whom Orlov also proposed, through him, that he become a nominal director. He does not know when and what documents were signed by Samedov; he does not know in what firm he was listed as a director or founder (volume 7, pages 6568). By the witness testimony of Baranov V.V., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that he works as a notary in the city of Khimki, registered as Number 22546, and performed the following actions: he certified the authenticity of the signature of a translator personally known to him, zagrebil [sic] D.I., on an English to Russian translation of a document: an apostille [of] the Commonwealth of Bahama islands and copies of the memorandum of association of Colchecter Group Trading Corp. The package of documents included: a certificate of registration, minutes of a meeting, a memorandum of association and a charter (volume 3, pages 139140). By the witness testimony of Lobach S.V., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that he worked as head of the Clerks Office of Irkutsk regional Arbitrazh Court and in answer to the investigators questions, he explained that he received statements of claim from 09:00 [signature]

21
on Monday to 16:00 hours each day, except Friday, Saturday and Sunday. All statements of claim are marked upon receipt with the stamp of Irkutsk Region Arbitrazh Court, indicating the date and procedural number. After registration, statements of claim are forwarded to the Deputy Chairmen of the court, to the directors of the 1st and 2nd panels, who allocate the cases among the judges according to the subject-matter of the claims and to the bench. This action is recorded on the front page of the statement of claim by the judges index and they are validated by a signature. The cases are forwarded to the judges specialist (assistant), recorded in a log against a receipt. In the year 2005, reception of statements of claim commenced from 20 December 2004. On 13 January 2005 a middle-aged man brought a statement of claim to the Clerks Office of the Arbitrazh court. An application for interim relief (petition) was attached to the statement of claim. After registration in the Clerks Office, the statement of claim was sent to the 1st panel to the Deputy Chairman, after which Deputy Chairman Buchneva N.A. allocated this statement of claim to Judge Kolominova N.Yu. This decision is recorded on the front page of this claim (volume 6, pages 2631). By the witness testimony of Arabadzhiyeva T.M., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties [in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure], from which it is ascertained that she has worked in Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court in the position of specialist since October 2004. Her duties include the preparation of cases for court hearings, notification of the litigants and the preparation and issuance of writs of execution. On 30 December 2004, the judge of Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court Klepachev S.I. handed down a ruling to grant interim relief in the form of imposing seizure on shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, but in respect of the relevant petition of the claimant, the firm Colchecter Group Trading Corp. On the morning of 31 December 2004, a man approached her and, introducing himself as the representative by power of attorney of the firm Colchecter Group Trading [Corp.], Sorokin V.A., asked to issue him with a writ of execution for the aforesaid case. This man presented a passport in the name of Sorokin V.A. and a power of attorney in the name of Sorokin V.A. She does not recall his appearance, as she has to deal with a large number of people on such matters. After receiving the writ of execution, he went to register it in the Clerks Office. All the time while she was dealing with him, he was alone and did not associate with anyone (volume 5, pages 3236). By the witness testimony of Kirienko O.I., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that From [sic] 20 June 2003 to 24 January 2005 she worked as a secretary at Chelter LLC and was a staff member of the general department. The general department included all the secretaries and drivers, including Albayev, Tyukayev and Mitskiy. The general director of this LLC was Dmitriy Klyuyev and the head accountant was Kudinova Ye.V. She was hired for the work by Kudinova. She received her salary in the accounts department from Kudinova. She I [sic] do not know where and from whom the drivers received their pay. Her duties included the provision of all office services required, namely office supplies, water, food and answering phone calls. There were two secretaries in the officethe second was Bespalova Ye.L. Tyukayev was employed as a driver and came in very rarely, only if he was called in by telephone. She does not know whether he was on the staff of the LLC or where and from whom he received his pay. On 12 January 2005 she was at her work-place in the office of Chelter LLC at the address: 3 ul. Novoslobodskaya and does not recall whether she received instructions from Kudinova. She could receive instructions relating to her work, including about needing to get in touch with Tyukayev by telephone, only from Kudinova or Klyuyev. She did not personally receive any direct instructions from Klyuyev. [signature]

22
She saw Klyuyev for the last time at the end of the year 2004. Klyuyev appeared in the office very rarely, no more than once a week. The general department was actually directed by Kudinova, only she could give any instructions relating to the operation of the department. She knows nothing of the whereabouts of Klyuyev. From time to time people came to visit Klyuyev. She does not know exactly who came, they kept no register or record of visitors. She does not recall the surname[s] Zhlobitskiy and Voronkov. She does not know whether they have been in the office of Chelter LLC (volume 7, pages 215218). By the witness testimony of Tarasov V.B., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that the name of the firm Form-M [Fora-M] LLC is not familiar to him, he has had no relationship of any kind to the activities of this firm, he has not signed any documents relating to this company. In about the middle of the year 2002, his acquaintance Lukanin Yu. Proposed [sic] that he earn some extra money, for which he needed to provide his passport details for the registration of various firms and go with the[m] to a notary to sign charter documents and articles of association, and also cards with sample signatures and the imprint of the seal of these firms, which were registered to him. In some firms he was registered as a founder and in some as the general director; Lukanin paid him RUR 200300 for the registration of each firm. He did not participate in any way in the firm Form-M LLC and can [only] assume that someone used his passport details (volume 27, pages 174175). By the witness testimony of Vinogradova L.N., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that she has worked at CB USB [Commercial Bank Universal Savings Bank] LLC since 1 December 2004, at that time she held the post of advisor to the head accountant. In early February the Russian Federation Central Bank approved her for the post of deputy head accountant, licensed to sign financial documents. On 18 March 2005 she was licensed to sign financial documents in full. From November 2004 to 2 March 2005 the director of the bank was Zhlobitskiy I.L. She goes to work every day and is at the premises of the bank from 09:00 to 18:00 hours. She has never seen Plaksin G.N., the chairman of the board of directors of the bank, in the entire time that she has worked at the bank; she does not know him personally. She did not see the documents dated from 1 December 2004 to the present, signed by Plaksin G.N. At present the bank is managed by the board of management of the bank, which includes Bogdanov N.S. and herself. She and Bogdanov N.S. manage the bank and decide on the development of the banks operations. She never received any instructions and requests from members of the board of directors of the bank, including in the last few months (volume 11, pages 2730). By the witness testimony of Makarov Yu.G., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, of 2 November 2005, who, in answer to the question[s] whether he is the founder and general director of Astra Group LLC, whether he took part in a transaction relating to the acquisition by this firm of an interest in CB Universal Savings Bank LLC and whether he was subsequently a member of the board of directors of this bank, testified the following, that in about October 2004 his old acquaintance, Orlov Sergei suggested that he earn USD 300. He said that for this he had to register nominally as the founder and general director of Astra Group LLC, give him his passport details and then sign the required documents. Because he was experiencing financial difficulties at that time, he agreed and gave Orlov S.V. his passport details. He did not ask Orlov S.V. any questions about why this firm needed to be registered to him and he explained that this was a formal procedure and nothing more was required of him. [signature]

23
Orlov S.V. gave him the address of the office to which he must go to register the documents. The office was located next to Novoslobodskaya metro station. He went to the office at the address indicated by Orlov S.V. and presented himself at the entrance, after which a young woman came out to see him with a package of documents; he went with her to the notary, which was located not far from the office. At the notarys office he signed some documents relating to the firm Astra Group LLC, which was formally registered to him, after which these documents were certified by the notary. He cannot explain exactly which documents he signed, as he does not recall. After signing, the young woman took the documents signed by me [sic] and they parted. Thereafter he had no relationship to the activities of Astra Group LLC and he did not sign any documents relating to transactions executed by this company. He was never a member of the board of directors of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC and did not sign any documents relating to this bank, he has now heard the name of this bank for the first time (volume 27, pages 163165). By the witness testimony of Ivanov A.V., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that he worked at Chelter Legal Defence and Consulting Centre LLC from November 2003 to December 2004 in the post of lawyer. Thereafter, from December 2004 to the present time, he has worked at Satellite Consulting Centre LLC in the post of legal consultant. In about December 2004January 2005, his superior Novokhatskiy A.A. told him that they should write letters of resignation from Chelter Legal Defence and Consulting Centre LLC and thereafter they would work at Satellite Consulting Centre LLC. His work duties included the provision of legal services related to insolvency of businesses; if the need arose, he would provide assistance to other colleagues in the legal department. He receives all his assignments from his superior Aleksei Novokhatskiy. He has never received direct instructions and assignments from Klyuyev. About Klyuyev, I know only that he was the general director of the firm Chelter Legal Defence and Consulting Centre LLC and subsequently of Satellite Consulting Centre LLC. There were three departments at Chelter Legal Defence and Consulting Centre LLC, namely: the legal department, which was headed by Novokhatskiy; the accounts department, headed by Kudinova, and the audit department, which was headed by Styoganova A.Ye. When all the staff moved to Satellite Consulting Centre LLC, the audit department was closed down. The main work of the legal department of Satellite Consulting Centre LLC was providing services relating to the registration of legal entities, providing assistance in making amendments to memoranda of association and providing services relating to insolvency of legal entities. The staff of Satellite Consulting Centre LLC are not working at present; some are resigning. He does not know exactly who directs and regulates the work procedures of Satellite Consulting Centre LLC. He is not acquainted with Tyukayev and Voronkov. He sees Albayev from time to time in the office, he was a chauffeur. He does not know what else he does. The last time he saw Albayev was in about December 2004January 2005; he has not maintained any personal contact with him. He is familiar with the name CB Universal Savings Bank LLC, he does not know whether this CB [Commercial Bank] has any relationship to the activities of our [sic] LLC in which he [sic] works. He has not seen documents connected with and relating to Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC. He received no requests to provide services connected with imposing seizure on shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC (volume 7, pages 236240). [signature]

24
By the witness testimony of Stephen Armstrong Jennings, disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that he has worked in the post of chairman of the board of directors of Renaissance Capital CJSC from September 1998 to the present time. His duties include general direction of the company and determining strategic trends in its development. Renaissance Capital CJSC is an investment company which sources major investments in the Russian economy and trades on the stock market of the Russian Federation in securities of different companies through broker structures. From January 2004 to the present time, the president of the company has been Kiselev O.V. His duties include organising the work and negotiations with a number of major clients of the company. Approximately at the end of January 2005, the deputy general director of the company, Yuriy Sagaydak told him that he had heard rumours that Kiselev was involved in an incident related to the shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC. He reported that there were certain suspicions that Kiselev was connected with some unlawful acts relating to the shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC and also reported that, according to the rumours, this conflict bore some relation to the company Eurasholding [Eurasia Holdings]. This astonished and puzzled him, as he found it difficult to imagine that a person of such standing and as experienced as Kiselev could be involved in some kind of unlawful activity with shares. He immediately called Kiselev in to see him and told him there were certain suspicions relating to him, about his involvement in unlawful acts relating to the shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC and asked him whether he was in fact connected with this in any way. In answer to this Kiselev stated categorically that he (Jennings) had nothing to worry about, these rumours were unfounded and he had nothing to do with this. He did not make any other comments on this account. A week ago he learned that Kiselevs office at their company had been searched by officers of the law enforcement agencies. Late in the evening of that day, Kiselev phoned and said that this was all provocation and nothing to do with the company, that he would sort the situation out and settle everything himself. He also told him that he had been summoned to attend the investigation for questioning on the following day at 11:00. The next day he did not come in and he found out that Kiselev was in hospital. One day later he phoned him in hospital and asked how he was feeling. In conversation Kiselev again assured him that everything would be okay and did not make any other comments on the situation that had developed (volume 26, pages 3946). By the witness testimony of Tyukayev Yu.I., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that Orlov was previously his neighbour. In about September 2004 he asked Orlov to help him find work. Some time later they phoned each other and he said that the firm Chelter LLC needed a driver. Kudinova accepted him for the work, so he began to work at Chelter LLC. His duties included chauffeuring employees of the firm. He was not usually at the office and came in only when he was called. He learned that the director of Chelter LLC was Dmitriy Klyuyev. Kudinova or one of the secretaries gave him instructions as to where he should go, phoning him on a mobile telephone. He did not associate with Klyuyev personally, he saw him 2 or 3 times in the office. He did not see Orlov at the office of Chelter LLC. He does not know whether Orlov was acquainted with Klyuyev. Kudinova once told him that if he and his wife wanted to earn some extra money, then they would register them as founders and directors of several firms and they would need to sign the required documents as founders and directors. For this, she proposed to pay USD 400 per month. He agreed and gave Kudinova his [signature]

25
passport details and his wifes details. Subsequently, at Kudinovas instruction, he and his wife often signed documents submitted on behalf of the general directors and founders of a number of firms. He does not recall what these firms were. On 12 January 2005 he was phoned from Chelter by a secretary, Olga, and she told him that he needed to come to the premises of Moscow City Arbitrazh Court and that a driver for Chelter LLC, Sergei Albayev, would be waiting for him there. She did not explain the purpose of the journey. Arriving at this place in a Mercedes Benz model W210 E 240 registration number A 748 EX 90, he met up with Albayev, who arrived in a Volkswagen Sharan. Together with Albayev, there was Voronkov Oleg, with an unknown man and several court bailiffs. As he found out later from television broadcasts, the man who was with Voronkov presented himself as Viktor Sorokin. He knew Voronkov, as he worked as a lawyer at Orlovs. Several bailiffs, whose surnames he does not know, got into his car. Voronkov, the man who was with him (Sorokin) and several other bailiffs got into Albayevs car. He did not personally go into the premises of the court bailiffs. While he was alongside the building of the court bailiffs service, Albayev sat in the car and did not go into the building. He explained to him that they needed to act as witnesses in some legal procedure. When a second group of bailiffs joined them in a Gazelle [car], one of the bailiffs invited him and Albayev to go into the bank. Then they entered the premises of the bank; they were registered at the entrance and went up to the second floor to a consultation room. A bailiff was sitting at the table; several bank employees, Voronkov and Sorokin were also in the room. He understood from the conversation that the bailiff was seizing shares. He did not know whose shares these were. After the documents were filled out, he and Albayev signed the documents as witnesses. They then left the bank, got into the cars and went to the bailiffs [office]. A bailiff, Voronkov and Sorokin went with him in the car. When they came out of the bank, Albayev gave him USD 200 and told him that was money for the time spent in the bank. At Roseltrans, Orlov was the chairman of the liquidation committee; Orlov introduced him to Voronkov, he also told him that Voronkov was his colleague [and] works with him as a lawyer (volume 7, pages 127 133). By the witness testimony of Veterennikova I.A., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that she has worked in the post of judges assistant of Irkutsk Region Arbitrazh Court since 12 May 2003. Her duties include writing drafts of court judgments. After she writes a draft of a court judgment, this draft is sent to the judge for checking and signing. The signed court judgment is then sent to a specialist, who collaborates directly with the participants in the case. Regarding the companies Colchecter Group Trading Corp. and Shimlen LLC, Veretennikova I.A. explained that she knew only the basic details which she read in the statement of claim. She prepared the drafts of the court [judgments] relating to these companies. After entering the judges comments and their amendments, the drafts were signed and sent to the specialist Linnikova Irina Vladimirovna, who no longer works in Irkutsk [Region] Arbitrazh Court (volume 6, pages 27). By the witness testimony of Tanova D.G., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, who explained that [she holds] the post of senior specialist on the third panel of Rostov [Region] Arbitrazh Court. Chebanova L.V. works as chairman of the third panel. Altogether there are eight judges on the third panel. Klepachev S.I. works as a judge on the third panel. Her work duties include receiving statements of claim at the Clerks Office of the Arbitrazh

[signature]

26
Court, submitting them to the chairman of the bench, distributing the statements of claim to the judges after their allocation by the chairman of the bench, compiling reports and summaries, and preparing various statistical memos and data. During the day on 29 December 2004, in the Clerks Office, she received a statement of claim by Colchecter Group Trading Corp. against Terra Soft LLC, together with a petition for interim relief, and took them to Chebanova L.V. In accordance with an order of the Chairman of the Arbitrazh Court, of 20 December 2004, statements of claim were being accepted and registered on 11 January 2005, but if petitions for interim relief were received, such petition[s] were registered on the day of receipt and considered within 24 hours, in accordance with the RF Code of Arbitrazh Procedure. On 29 December 2004 she also sent Chebanova L.V. the statement of claim of Colchecter Group Trading Corp., since an application for interim relief had also been filed. The chairman of the bench instructed him [sic] to send this statement of claim and application for interim relief to judge Klepachev S.I., which she did. Representatives of the claimant and respondent did not approach her and she did not see them in the Arbitrazh Court building (pages 5961). By the witness testimony of Mishchenko A.V., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that she has worked in the post of head of the Clerks Office of Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court since 16 January 2003. Her duties include general direction of the work of the Clerks Office. On 29 December 2004, between about 13:00 and 14:00 hours, a man came to the Clerks Office of the Arbitrazh court with the intention of filing a statement of claim on behalf of Colchecter Group Trading [Corp.]. The respondent in this statement of claim is TerraSoft LLC, but the subject of the claim was enforcement of specific performance of obligations relating to the transfer of shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC to the claimants ownership, in the amount of 6 million items. It was explained to this man that the statement of claim would be accepted on 11 January 2005, i.e. registered in the computer, but he drew attention to the claimants petition that he had, seeking an interim relief order to impose seizure on these shares. For this reason, the claim was accepted on 29 December 2004 and allocated number A53-445/05C3. At the time of filing the statement of claim, this man had not submitted documents and did not introduce himself, but the surname Sorokin V.A. appeared as the claimants representative in the documents submitted. The aforesaid package of documents was accepted by the Clerks Office and allocated to the third panel, based on the subject matter. On 30 December 2004, the judge of Rostov Region Abitrazh Court Klepachev M.I. handed down a ruling to grant interim relief by imposing seizure on the aforesaid shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC. On 31 December 2004, this man, who had filed the claim on behalf of Colchecter Group Trading [Corp.] and presented a writ of execution, came to the Clerks Office, with a request to stamp it with the heraldic seal. She asked him to present his passport or power of attorney, in response to which he presented a passport in the name of Sorokin V.A. They registered the presented writ of execution, for which this man, who introduced himself as Sorokin V.A., signed on behalf of Sorokin V.A. in the log recording issuance of writs of execution. There was no-one together with him in the premises of the Clerks Office (volume 5, pages 1417). By the witness testimony of Senkina, disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that her husband Senkin S.I. was killed by his brother. In life, Sergei did practically no work, he drank spirits constantly. He never had any business acquaintances. He was never a founder and director of Shimlen LLC. Sergei lost his national passport in a drunken state somewhere on a boulevard, about which he wrote a statement to the police and was issued a new passport (volume 27, pages 160162).

[signature]

27
By the witness testimony of Zarapina N.A., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that she worked at Chelter Legal Defence and Consulting Centre from 5 May to December 2004 in the post of lawyer, then from December 2004 to the present, she has worked at SATELLITE Consulting Centre LLC in the post of legal consultant. She receives all assignments from her superior Aleksei Novokhatskiy. I have never received direct instructions or assignments from Klyuyev D.V. and I have also never seen him. She is not personally acquainted with Steganova A.Ye. She does not know Tyukayev Yu.I., Zhlobitskiy I.L. and Voronkov O.Yu., their surnames are unknown to her. She has prepared documents several times for the surname Tyukayev, she does not recall exactly which. She saw Albayev in the office from time to time, he was working as a driver. She does not know what else he did. She last saw Albayev S.A. in December 2004, she has not maintained any contact personally with him. The whereabouts of Klyuyev D.V. and Albayev S.V. are not known [to her]. She is not familiar with the name CB Universal Savings Bank LLC (CB USB), she does not know whether this CB [Commercial Bank] has any relationship to the activities of our LLC. She has not seen documents connected with or related to Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC. I have received no requests for the provision of services connected with seizure of shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC (volume 2, pages 253257). By the witness testimony of Morshanov A.A., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that he is not familiar with the firm Forus Inotex LLC, he was never its general director, he has never had any relationship to the activities of this firm and he has never signed any documents relating to this company. In March 2002, for a period of a month, he was employed in the post of courier in the firm Garant Nova LLC. This firm was engaged in the registration of legal entities and subsequent sale of ready firms to clients. Over the time of his employment, at the instruction of one of the directors of this firm, he once acted as a founder or as general director for the registration of some firm (I do not remember the name), for which he provided the directors of Grant Nova LLC with his passport details and signed articles of association and charter documents of the companies being registered. Soon after this he was called in periodically by officers of various law enforcement agencies, where he learned that more and more new firms, with which he had no relationship, had been registered with his passport details (volume 27, pages 172173). By the witness testimony of Luzhetskiy Yu.V, disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that he is not a founder or general director of Sonex LLC. He does not know what this company does and knows nothing about this firm. He knows nothing about the companies Forus Inotex LLC and Fora-M LLC. I did not lose my passport and did not give it to anyone, especially to unauthorized persons (volume 27, pages 170171). By the witness testimony of Tetin V.V., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that he became acquainted with Salikhov A.R. on the first working day of the year 2005, namely on 11 January 2005. He does not recall the exact date when the writ of execution appeared. On this day, two people introduced themselves as the claimants representatives in respect of a writ of execution and presented the writ of execution, a power of attorney, a passport and [signature]

28
an application to initiate an enforcement proceeding. He also inspected this writ, I [sic] had no further questions. In all, the claimants representatives were in the office of Salikhov A.R. for about three minutes. He did not know about the forthcoming visit of the claimants representatives with a writ of execution from Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court. No-one approached me with requests regarding service of this writ. The last working day in the year 2004 was 31 December 2004. The acting head of department was Kuznetsova I.K., the deputy was [sic] he and Klinishev V.V., and also Burmakov L.Yu. and Sapko A.V. (volume 2, pages 147150). By the witness testimony of Ratskevich A.I., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that, from the end of the year 2002 to 1 November 2004, he was a member of the board of directors of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC. In addition to him, the members of the banks board of directors were Zhukov A.B. and Libergot E.L. The shareholders of the bank were 5 legal entities: Audit Agency LLC, Rusoptiktsentr [Russ Optic Centre] LLC, Manezh Merkuriy [Mercurys Stable] LLC, Travita [sic] Firm LLC and PKF Redan LLC. The owners of these firms were, in turn, the firms Stroykomplektservis LLC, Lavanda Centre LLC, Forest LLC, Investline LLC and Artex Plus LLC. These companies were in turn associated with and in fact belonged to the international holding company Interfinance SA. Thus, CB Universal Savings Bank LLC in effect belonged to the holding company Interfinance SA. In the spring of 2004, the directors of the holding company Interfinance SA formed the intention of selling the bank and he dealt with the sale. In the few months following I looked for buyers and conducted the relevant negotiations. At the same time, he was approached by Ovechkin S.V., who at that time was the chairman of the board of the bank. He reported that his former colleague Zhlobitskiy I.L. together with a group of interested parties was considering purchasing CB Universal Savings Bank LLC. He met with Zhlobitskiy I.L. After a number of meetings a decision was taken that Zhlobitskiy I.L. would organise an audit and due diligence of the banks and its participants. During October 2004, a team of lawyers and auditors, which Zhlobitskiy I.L. engaged, conducted the check on the bank. He does not know from exactly which companies these people were outsourced, but as I understood, they were very competent specialists in their fields. Ultimately, based on the results of the review, Zhlobitskiy and his unknown partners took a final decision to purchase the bank. From the legal standpoint, the sale of the bank was formalized in the form of five agreements on the sale and purchase of 100% of the shares in the charter capital of the firms listed abovethe shareholders of the bank. The buyers under these agreements were five firms sourced by Zhlobitskiy I.L. The directors themselves of the firms making the purchase did not appear to be people well informed about the circumstances of the transaction, for which reason he formed the impression that they were nominal directors of these firms (volume 11, pages 4245). By the witness testimony of Carpenter R.K., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, who in answer to questions about the purpose for which the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp. was set up and about its founders and employees, testified that the creation of the company was suggested to him by a Russian businessman, whose name he cannot mention, as they have worked together on business related to founding companies for sale. Under the laws of the Bahama islands the activity of setting up ready firms for remuneration is a usual form of business. [signature]

29
He dealt personally with the registration of this company, Colchecter Group Trading Corp. in 1999; this company was initially registered in the companies register in 1999, but was excluded from the companies register on 31 January 2001 and does not exist as a legal entity in the Commonwealth of Bahama islands. He does not know citizen Sorokin. He has not signed any documents on behalf of the company (volume 3, pages 3137). By the witness testimony of Sagaydak Yu.P., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that he worked At [sic] Renaissance Capital Finance Consultant CJSC from approximately April 1999 to the present time. All this time he worked in the post of deputy general director. At the present time, the general director (president) of the company is Kiselev Oleg Vladimirovich. He has occupied this post since about February 2004. The president of the board of directors, the principal shareholder and actual director of the company, however, is a New Zealand citizen, Steven Jennings. He knows Klyuyev D.V., who was engaged for one of the projects, as a consultant on matters of tax legislation and the organisation of claims for overpaid taxes through the judicial procedure. Kiselev O.V. and Klyuyev D.V. consulted with each other on these matters. Approximately in mid January of the year 2005, in a meeting with Klyuyev D.V., the latter informed him that not long prior to this, at the personal request of Kiselev O.V., he had organised through the court and court bailiffs to impose seizure on shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, after which, unexpectedly for him, this situation received widespread coverage in the press and a criminal case was opened in respect of this matter (volume 26, pages 35 38). By the witness testimony of Yudina V.G., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that in the days before the New Year, statements of claim were accepted by Irkutsk Region Arbitrazh Court through the usual procedure. She examined Case No. A 19-1964/05-6-C3-40, on the basis of which the finding was made that the rulings handed down by Judge Kolominova N.Yu. were lawful (volume 6, pages 1925). By the witness testimony of Kolominova N.Yu., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that she has worked in the post of judge of Irkutsk Region Arbitrazh Court since 18 September 1995. The decision to refer hearing of the statement of claim of the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp. to her was taken by the deputy chairman of Irkutsk Region Arbitrazh Court, chairman of the first panel, Buchneva Natalya Aleksandrovna. She initiated proceedings in this statement of claim on 14 January 2005 after examination of the case file. She has not had dealings with any of the directors, employees and representatives of the company [sic] Colchecter Group Trading Corp. and Shimlen LLC. No powers of attorney were presented on behalf of the aforesaid parties. The file contains power of attorney No. 1 of 26 January 2004, issued by ING Bank (Eurasia) CJSC. She is not personally acquainted with any representatives of the claimant or respondent. These persons did not make telephone calls. She does not know who checked the powers of attorney and passport details of the representatives of the claimant or respondent in this case, as she was not present during this procedure. On 14 January 2005 she handed down a ruling to initiate proceedings in the statement of claim and set a hearing of the claim. On this same date

[signature]

30
a hearing was held and a ruling was handed down granting interim relief and a writ of execution No. 309 was issued. On 31 January 2005 she handed down a ruling to rescind the order for interim relief, at the request of ING Bank (Eurasia) CJSC. A preliminary hearing was set for 8 February 2005 at 10 hours 00 mins. However, none of the litigants appeared at that time. A specialist of the department dealt with the sending of correspondence. As is evident from the case file, the court judgments were obtained by the claimants representative, Sorokin V.A., regarding which there are relevant notes in the file (volume 6, pages 818). By the witness testimony of Komarov A.N., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that [from] 16 December 2004 to the present time he has been acting directorchief bailiff of the Federal Court Bailiffs Service Head Office for Moscow. His work duties include general supervision of the Moscow court bailiffs service. A check was made to verify the seizure of shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, in which it was established that the quantity of shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC seized by Kalugin was greater than the quantity specified in the writ of execution. After execution of the enforcement proceedings, they contacted the judge and chairman of Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court who handed down this decision, in order to establish the authenticity of the writ of execution. They then received information that the claimant company was fictitious, after which they initiated measures to rescind the seizure imposed on shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC (volume 2, pages 152158). By the witness testimony of Bragina O.M., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that she is attached to the third panel of the court, in the post of judges assistant of Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court. She works mainly with Judge Klepachev S.I. Her duties include the preparation of cases for court hearings and also the preparation of drafts of court judgments, making a record of court proceedings and so forth. On 29 December 2004 Tanova D.G. brought in a statement of claim with attached documents, filed by the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp. against TerraSoft LLC, and forwarded this for examination to Judge Klepachev S.I. At the instruction of Judge Klepachev S.I., on 29 December 2004, I prepared a draft of a ruling to initiate proceedings in the case and set a date for the hearing. There was also a document attached to the claim, an application for interim relief. On the following day, 30 December 2004, at the instruction of Judge Klepachev S.I. she prepared a ruling to grant interim relief. This ruling imposed seizure on shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC. The ruling was signed by Klepachev S.I. After this, the specialist issues [sic] a writ of execution for the case, which is [sic] sent, forwarded to the claimant. There was in fact no hearing of this arbitrazh case. The judge alone decided to initiate proceedings in the case and to grant interim relief. None of the litigants in the case were present when these decisions were taken. A representative of the claimant, the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp. and TerraSoft LLC did not approach her in connection with the hearing of this claim. On about 1718 January 2005, at the instruction of Judge Klepachev S.I., I prepared a ruling to rescind the order for interim relief, that is, the seizure of shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC was reversed. This decision was handed down after an application to the arbitrazh court by the banks representatives from Moscow, who presented documents showing that the shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC belong to entirely different enterprises, not to the firm TerraSoft LLC and the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp. At the time [signature]

31
when this ruling was handed down, the arbitrazh case file itself was at the court of appeal in Krasnodar (volume 5, pages 5658). By the witness testimony of Berezhnoy S.I., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that he has worked at ING Bank (Eurasia) CJSC in the post of head of the depositary division since 2002. My work duties include organisation of business, attracting new clients, approval of depositary agreements and working with clients. In December 2004, depositary agreements were concluded between Ing Bank (Eurasia) CJSC and CG Capital LLC [and] the companies: Leyland Investments Limited, Parkeston Holdings Limited, Ternhill Investments Limited, Belford Holdings Limited, Belford Holdings Limited [sic] and Kilmory Services Limited, the subject of which was that the bank undertakes to provide services relating to the holding of certificates and securities and the registration and certification of rights to securities, by opening and administering a depositary account for the client and processing transactions through this account, and also to provide services facilitating the exercise of the clients rights to the securities belonging to the client, and associated depositary services. From the moment of the execution of these agreements, the aforesaid shares were transferred to the account of Ing Bank (Eurasia) CJSC, as the nominal holder in the register of shareholders of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, and were placed in their accounts, opened at ING Bank (Eurasia) CJSC. The names TerraSoft LLC and Colchecter Group Trading Corp. became known to him on 12 January 2005 in connection with the seizure imposed on shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, from documents presented by the court bailiff, Kalugin A.A. He is not acquainted with the directors of TerraSoft LLC and Colchecter Group Trading Corp. He kno[ws] nothing of the activities of these companies. On 12 January 2005 at about 11 hours 15 minutes, a group numbering about eleven people arrived at Ing Bank (Eurasia) CJSC comprising: a court bailiff of the 1st inter-district division of Federal Court Bailiffs Service Head Office for Moscow, Kalugin A.A.; a court bailiff of the 1st inter-district division of Federal Court Bailiffs Service Head Office for Moscow, Zuikov A.V; the witnesses: Albayev S.A., Tyukayev Yu.I.; security officers and one other individual, unknown to him. Kalugin presented to him and to the head of the legal department an order of 11 January 2005 to initiate enforcement proceedings and demand No. 4226/11/05 of 12 January 2005. Pursuant to this demand, the bank was obliged immediately to provide a statement of the account in which 6,039,200 shares of the issuer Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC are held. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the court bailiff seized 6,089,200 ordinary nominal uncertified shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, however, the order specified seizure of 6,039,200 shares. All the aforesaid shares in the quantity of 6,039,200 items were held in the accounts of CG Capital LLC, Leyland Investments Limited, Parkeston Holdings Limited, Ternhill Investments Limited, Belford Holdings Limited, Belford Holdings Limited [sic] and Kilmory Services Limited. The court bailiff Kalugin compiled a certificate of inventory and seizure of the shares in respect of the aforesaid proceedings. This certificate was signed by Kalugin, Zuikov, Albayev, Tyukayev [and] by him. The claimants representative, Sorokin Viktor Aleksandrovich was also recorded in the certificate of inventory and seizure of the shares, however the certificate does not contain Sorokins signature. [signature]

32
TerraSoft LLC and Colchecter Group Trading Corp. do not have accounts at Ing Bank (Eurasia) CJSC and according to the records on depositary accounts, they were not shareholders of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC. According to information and documents held at the bank, TerraSoft LLC is not a shareholder of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC (volume 8, pages 1819). By the witness testimony of Novokhatskiy A.A., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that he is employed in the post of head of the legal department of Satellite Consulting Centre LLC. The general director is Klyuyev Dmitriy Vladislavovich, the head accountant is Kudinova Yelena Valentinovna. This LLC is engaged in the provision of legal and accountancy services. Prior to this, the Chelter legal defence and consulting centre was located in this office. This company was engaged in the provision of legal services. The general director was Klyuyev D.V. Chelter LLC, the general director of which was Klyuyev, was located in the adjacent office. This company was engaged in auditing business. At the present time the Chelter legal defence and consulting centre and Chelter LLC have not been liquidated, but the owner and general director have been replaced. He has known Albayev since 2004, as he worked at the Chelter legal defence and consulting centre. He does not know in what capacity he was working, but he had the use of a Volkswagen Sharan car. He has not seen documents connected with and relating to Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC. He received no requests for the provision of services connected with the seizure of shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC (volume 7, pages 219223). By the witness testimony of Pavlov A.A., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that he has known Dmitriy Klyuyev since the year 2001. From time to time Klyuyev approached him on matters relating to the provision of legal assistance to his clients. In the year 2004, in connection with refurbishment of the premises of the law office Tekhnologiya Prava [Legal Method] he contacted Klyuyev with a request to find premises to house the law office. Klyuyev suggested housing the office in premises rented by Chelter LLC at the address: 3 ul. Novoslobodskaya, 7th Floor, Moscow. Several tables and a place to store items and documents were set aside for the requirements of the [law] office in the premises rented by Chelter LLC. At the end of December 2004, before his departure to countries of South East Asia on leave, Klyuyev asked him to provide procedural assistance to his colleagues in the implementation of an assignment given by him, but without telling him exactly what assignment he had given. After his departure, he was contacted by his assistant Albayev, I he [sic] does not recall his first name, with a request to check a statement of claim, as he later realized, for shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC On [sic on] whose behalf a statement of claim was drawn up and he does not recall to whom it was addressed. A petition for interim relief in the form of seizure of the disputed shares was attached to the statement of claim. He inspected these documents. Later Albayev got in touch, with a request to find a lawyer who could help in applying to the Arbitrazh courts and court bailiffs service to execute enforcement proceedings. Albayev explained that they had prepared statements of claim with attached documents for the Arbitrazh courts of the Rostov and Irkutsk regions, and also that there was a representative of the claimant, who was not a specialist in the field of law and could not independently represent the claimants interests in the court. As a power of attorney had been drawn up for this person, a supporting lawyer needed to be found for him. Albayev did not tell him the surname and first name of the claimants representative. How and where Albayev found this representative, he does not know. He contacted Voronkov Oleg Yurevich, whom I [sic]

[signature]

33
knew personally, with a request to provide assistance to the claimants representative in applying to the Arbitrazh courts and in the enforcement of court judgments, to which Voronkov agreed. At the time he was contacted, Voronkov was working on the liquidation committee of Roseltrans JSC, he had extensive experience working in Arbitrazh courts and frequently travelled around the country. It was he who proposed that Voronkov work on the liquidation committee at Roseltrans JSC. After reaching an agreement with Voronkov, he informed Albayev that the required lawyer had been found. Some time later he received the necessary package of documents from Albayev to apply to Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court for seizure of a package of shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC. At the same time, Albayev forewarned him that he had another, similar package of documents, relating to a claim for another package of shares against a firm located in the city of Bratsk. During the handover of the documents, Albayev explained that the package of documents included a power of attorney and passport in the name of the claimants representative. He (Pavlov) requested Albayev to ask the claimants representative to come to Voronkovs office to get acquainted and discuss the forthcoming trip. Later Albayev said that Aleksei would join them for the meeting. He did not inspect the package of documents handed over to him (Pavlov) by Albayev, as there was no time. After this they met at Voronkovs office, where there was already a man who introduced himself as Aleksei, the claimants representative. He does not know this persons surname. Then he (Pavlov) gave them the package of documents and explained that they both needed to fly to Rostov-on-Don and at Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court they needed to collect the prepared documents, namely an order for interim relief in the form of seizure of the shares. He reported this information to them from what Albayev had said. Among the aforesaid documents there were plane tickets to Rostov-on-Don and a passport. He does not know whose name this document was in, as he did not look at it. No-one thought that the petition for interim relief would be denied, since under Article 93 RF Code of Arbitrazh Procedure, if there is a bank guarantee, it must be granted unconditionally no later than the following day after receipt of the documents by the court. Several days before the New Year, Albayev gave him the telephone number of an unknown person, through whom he asked to forward the documents to him that were obtained at Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court, namely the court ruling and the writ of execution. Some time later he learned from Voronkov that the documents had been received at Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court. He gave Voronkov the telephone number of Albayevs person and asked to give the documents received to this person. When and from whom Albayev received the aforesaid documents, he does not know. Having learned of the affirmative decision of Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court, Albayev asked him to help enforce the court ruling, which he refused to do, as he was going away on leave to France on 6 January 2005. He (Pavlov) suggested to Albayev that as there was nothing complicated about taking part in enforcement proceeding, Voronkov could help in this matter. In the course of the conversation Albayev also informed me that after the seizure of the shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, Voronkov, together with the claimants representative, would need to obtain a ruling in Irkutsk Region Arbitrazh Court for seizure of a similar package of shares in Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC. He asked Albayev to leave all the required documents on the desk at his office. He did not meet with Voronkov and Albayev at the end of 2004. After receiving the documents at Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court, he tried to reach Kiselev on the phone to report that his request had been fulfilled, but I do [sic] not recall whether he got through to him or not. At the beginning of the year 2005, he went away to Nizhniy Novgorod. After his return, that is, after 4 January 2005, he found the package of documents left on his desk by Albayev, where he discovered sheets of paper with the claimants seal, an application to initiate enforcement proceedings, a ruling of the Arbitrazh [signature]

34
Court of Rostov Region and a writ of execution to impose seizure on the shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC. An application to initiate enforcement proceedings was drawn up in the name of the head of the Court Bailiffs Service Division for the Central Administrative District of Moscow. On 5 January 2005, he phoned Voronkov and asked permission to come to his home, as he was flying out the next morning on leave. He arrived at Voronkovs home, asked him to take measures promptly to serve the writ of enforcement and handed him the package of documents left by Albayev. Some time later, while on leave, he learned from friends that after the New Year holidays, all the senior officers of the Moscow court bailiffs service were off duty, including the senior officers of the first inter-district division of the Court Bailiffs Service for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, in whose territory the enforcement proceedings relating to seizure of the shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC must take place. He knew that documents could not be submitted to the office at the first inter-district division of the Court Bailiffs Service for the Central Administrative District of Moscow without the consent of the head of the division. This rule was introduced under the previous head of the division, Polishchuk I.V. In view of this fact, I suggested to Voronkov to get in touch with the team of court bailiffs who specialize in securities, specifically with Kalugin A.A., on the first reception day. From a telephone conversation with Voronkov he learned that everything had been successful and the shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC had been seized. I asked Voronkov, after receiving the documents relating to the seizure of the shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, to send them to the office of Chelter LLC with a note for Klyuyev, since at that time Klyuyev had to return to Moscow. I contacted Klyuyev several times and informed him of the outcome of the seizure of the shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC. He also informed Voronkov that he needed to come to the office of Chelter LLC and collect the tickets and documents needed for the business trip to Irkutsk. He explained to Voronkov that, together with the claimants representative, on the flight to Irkutsk he needed to contact Sergei, whom he did not know, whose telephone number Albayev had left for him, and find out from him when he could collect the prepared documents in Irkutsk Region Arbitrazh Court. As he understood, Sergei dealt with the filing of documents in Irkutsk Region Arbitrazh Court. On my return from leave on 17 or 18 January 2005 I arrived at the office of Chelter LLC, where I saw Klyuyev. They discussed the outcome of the seizure of the shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC. At a meeting with Albayev, he asked him (Pavlov) to collect all the documents relating to this case from Voronkov, including the passport of the claimants representative, Aleksei. He phoned Voronkov and asked him to come together with Aleksei to the office of Chelter LLC and hand over all the documents, including the passport. Voronkov and Aleksei did not ask him any questions. He handed all the documents received to Albayev. He does not know their subsequent fate. From conversations with Klyuyev, I learned that Klyuyev did not have a personal interest in the seizure of the shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, but was acting at the request of third parties. In January 2005 in a conversation with Dmitriy Klyuyev I learned that at the end of the year 2004 he had been contacted by Kiselev O.V., who is the president of IC [Investment Company] Renaissance Capital CJSC, with a request to seize shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC. Klyuyev did not explain why Kiselev O.V. needed to seize shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC. Kiselev did not indicate to Klyuyev exactly which shares needed to be seized and to which entities they belong; he explained that the shares belonged to several companies, but are controlled by the owner of IMPEX bank, Boris Ivanishvili. Kiselev did not say for how long the shares needed to remain frozen, but he asked in effect to obtain the seizure order no later than 13 January 2005, otherwise the aforesaid actions would no longer be of interest to him. For seizure in the period up to 13 January 2005, Kiselev promised remuneration. However, there was no discussion of embezzlement of the shares, Klyuyev D.V. was instructed only to organise their seizure (volume 26, pages 7987). [signature]

35
By the witness testimony of Aleksanov A.G., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that about in the spring of 2002 in circumstances unknown to him he lost his civil passport 45-01-800835, issued on 24 October 2001 by Alekseyevskiy Department of Internal Affairs (OVD), Moscow. He wrote a statement about the loss to the residential cooperative Etalon, but they dealt with assembling the necessary documents to obtain a new passport to replace the lost one. During this period of time an elderly woman phoned his home telephone and said that she had found my [sic] civil passport. As the passport had been returned to him, he did not go to the police and did not obtain a new passport. He has never been and is not a director of TerraSoft LLC, an employee or representative of TerraSoft LLC, and has no relationship of any kind to this company. He knows nothing about the company TerraSoft LLC and its activities. He also knows nothing about the companies Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, ING Bank (Eurasia) CJSC, CG Capital LLC and Colchecter Group Trading Corp., or about their directors, employees and the activities of these companies. The signature on behalf of the general director of TerraSoft LLC Aleksanov A.G., filled in this agreement, does not belong to him. He is acquainted only with Klyuyev D.V., he has known him approximately since July 1991 and became acquainted with him when he was renting an apartment in the district of Krasnopresnenskaya naberezhnaya, he rented this apartment for his own firm as an office on the same day that he finished the term of his lease. After our meeting he and I formed friendly relations, we often met and spent time together (volume 3, pages 144147). By the witness testimony of Kudinova Ye.V., disclosed and examined with the consent of the parties in accordance with Article 281 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it is ascertained that after 20 December 2004 she received an instruction from Klyuyev D.V. that I [sic] should monitor the transfer of funds for Klyuyev D.V. in the amount of about USD 1 million from the president of IC Renaissance Capital CJSC, Kiselev O.V. Klyuyev gave me two work telephone numbers of Kiselev O.V. She phoned, introduced herself to Kiselev O.V. and told him that she was phoning at the request of Klyuyev D.V. concerning the transfer of the aforesaid funds for him. In response Kiselev O.V. replied to me that with regard to the matter of this payment I needed to phone his secretary, Yulia, who knew about this matter and would be expecting my call. Having phoned Yulia, she also introduced herself and said that she was phoning to find out when the funds would be transferred for Klyuyev at the instructions of Kiselev O.V., and also asked her to give her the payment details (the number and date of the payment document, the firm receiving the payment). Yulia replied to me that the funds must probably have already been transferred, but she could not give me the payment details, as the funds should have been transferred not from Kiselev O.V. himself, but from the vice-president of Eurasholding, Frolov. In the course of the following day or two I made several phone calls to Yulia, who told me that no information had been received from Frolov yet in respect of the payment details and that she herself could not contact Frolov directly, as he was too important. She said that she would try to ask Kiselev O.V. himself to contact Frolov on this matter. Eventually Yulia told me that the required payment document had been found and sent it by fax. She (Kudinova) took the copy of the payment document to the office of Klyuyev D.V. and placed it on his desk, as he was not in the office at that time. She does not recall the details of the payment and the firm that was the recipient of the funds, as she did not look closely at the contents of the payment document. She acknowledges that the transfer of the aforesaid sum of money could have [signature]

36
have been made in two or three instalments and the secretary of Kiselev O.V. sent me several payment documents, however I cannot state this definitely now, as quite a large number of instructions were received from Klyuyev D.V. on those days to phone our partners and monitor the transfer of various sums by them (volume 26, pages 2426). The defendants guilt is also confirmed by the evidence gathered on the case and examined in the course of the court hearing. Vol. 2 The record of 26 January 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of the 1st inter-district division of the Federal Court Bailiffs Service for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, (pages 6-7). By the record of 15 August 2005 of the inspection of items (documents) removed during a seizure at the premises of the 1st inter-district division of the Federal Court Bailiffs Service for the Central Administrative District of Moscow (pages 72-75) By the documents of enforcement proceeding No. 4226/11/04 of 11 January 2005 By the certificate of acceptance of enforcement proceeding [sic] No. 4226/11/04 of 21 January 2005 (page 10) By the application to terminate enforcement proceeding No. 4226/11/04, of 20 January 2005 (pages 11-12) By the ruling to rescind the restriction of rights of a holder of securities, of 19 January 2005 (page 13) By the ruling to rescind the order for interim relief in respect of Case No. A53445/2005-S3-40, of 18 January 2005 (page 14) By a statement of clarification of a ruling, of 17 January 2005 (page 15). By Order No. 3 of 17 January 2005 (page 16). By the certificate of acceptance of the enforcement proceeding [sic], of 17 January 2005 (page 17). By a statement of clarification of a ruling, of 14 January 2005 (page 18). By the letter to court bailiff Kalugin A.A. Ref. No. 1/14 of 14 January 2005 (page 19). By the letter to court bailiff Kalugin A.A. Ref. No. 096-01/2005 of 14 January 2005 (page 20). By depositary account statements (pages 21-27). By a memorandum on enforcement proceeding No. 4226/11/04 of 11 January 2005 (pages 28-29). By a copy of a letter addressed to the director of the Federal Court Bailiffs Service, Chief Court Bailiff of the Russian Federation, Vinnichenko N.A., of 13 January 2005 (pages 30-31). By a depositary account statement (page 32). By a ruling of 13 January 2005 (page 33). By a letter to court bailiff Kalugin A.A. of 14 January 2005 (page 34). By a copy of a report on the participation of court bailiffs (page 35). By a statement for depositary accounts (vol. 2, pages 36-42). By a general power of attorney No. 006-M/05 of 1 January 2005 (pages 43-44). By a statement for depositary accounts (pages 46-55). By demand No. 4226/11/05 of 12 January 2005 (page 56). By an application of 11 January 2005 to call out security bailiffs (page 57). [By] a memorandum report to Komarov A.N. of 11 January 2005 (page 58). By a memorandum to the Federal Court Bailiffs Service Head Office for Moscow, [of] 11 January 2005 (page 59). [signature]

37
By a ruling to initiate enforcement proceeding No. 4226/11/05, of 11 January 2005 (page 60). By a letter to the 1st inter-district division of the Court Bailiffs Service of the Federal Court Bailiffs Service Head Office for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, of 31 December 2004 (page 61). By a power of attorney in the name of Sorokin V.A. of 24 December 2004 (page 62). By a statistical record card on enforcement proceeding No. 4226/11/05 of 11 January 2005 (page 63). By the ruling to grant interim relief in Case No. A53-445/2005-S3-40, of 30 December 2004 (page 64). By the writ of execution for Case No. A53-445/2005-S3-40, of 30 December 2004 (page 65). By an order to restrict the rights of a holder of securities, of 12 January 2005 (pages 66-68) By the certificate of inventory and seizure of securities, of 12 January 2005 (pages 69-71). By the record, of 10 March 2005, of the presentation of photographs of Albayev Sergei Aleksandrovich for identification, according to which the identifying witness Klinishev V.V. inspected photographs presented for identification and stated that, in the person shown in photograph No. 2, he recognises the person who took part in enforcement proceedings, specifically, to impose seizure on shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, as a witness, specifically, the enforcement proceedings pursuant to a writ of execution of Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court. He also added that he saw this person on the day of the enforcement proceedings conducted (on-site) on 12 January 2005 at the premises of ING Bank Eurasia on Krasnaya Presnya and also before the enforcement proceedings began, at the premises of the 1st inter-district division of the Federal Court Bailiffs Service Head Office for Moscow at the address: Bldg. 2, 3 Krasnovorotskiy pr-d [proyezd], Moscow, together with the claimants representative, who presented enforcement orders of Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court to impose seizure on 6,039,2000 [sic] ordinary uncertified shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC with a nominal value of RUR 0.25. He identified Albayev Sergei Aleksandrovich from his external appearance (pages 134-138). Vol. 3

By the record, of 27 May 2005, of the presentation of photographs of Albayev Sergei Aleksandrovich for identification, according to which the identifying witness Sorokina Yu.V. inspected photographs presented for identification and stated that in the person shown in photograph No. 2, she recognises the man who, together with two others, in late January early February, approached her on the street and asked where her father, Sorokin V.A. was and how they could find him. It was he who approached her a second time a week later, but now together with one of those men, and asked whether her father had returned; the witness identified Albayev S.A. (vol. 3, pages 15-18).

Vol. 4 By the record of 6 April 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court (vol. 4, pages 3-6). By the record of 26 August 2005 of the inspection of documents removed during a seizure at the premises of Irkutsk Region Arbitrazh Court (volume 4, pages 7-11). By material evidence: - by the files of arbitrazh case No. A53-445/2005-S3-40: [signature]

38

by an inventory of documents (vol. 4, pages 16-17).

By the certified copy of a ruling of 29 December 2004 to initiate proceedings in respect of a statement of claim and prepare the case for a preliminary hearing (vol. 4, page 18). By a copy of a writ of execution of 30 December 2004 (vol. 4, page 19). [By] a copy of a writ of execution of 30 December 2004 (vol. 4, page 20). By a statement of claim seeking enforcement of the specific performance of obligations, pursuant to which the claimant (Colchecter Group Trading Corp.) petitions the court to order the respondent (TerraSoft LLC) to perform obligations relating to the transfer to the claimant of 6,039,200 ordinary nominal uncertified shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, with a nominal value of RUR 0.25, state registration issue number No.1-01-00081-A, by re-registration of these shares to the claimants account, and to order the nominal holder of the shareholders register (ING Bank Eurasia CJSC) to enter the relevant amendments in the depositary record system (vol. 4, pages 21-22). By an application for interim relief in which the claimant (Colchecter Group Trading Corp.) petitions the court to impose seizure on 6,039,200 ordinary nominal uncertified shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, with a nominal value of RUR 0.25, state registration issue number 1-01-00081-A, held by the professional participant in the securities market, ING BANK (Eurasia) CJSC (vol. 4, page 23). By a copy of a securities sale and purchase agreement of 22 November 2004, under which TerraSoft LLC, represented by the general director Aleksanov Andrei Georgievich, transfers to the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp., represented by the director Roger Carpenter, 6,039,200 ordinary nominal uncertified shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC with a nominal value of RUR 0.25 each, at the price of RUR 0.52 per share (vol. 4, pages 24-26). By receipt stubs (vol. 4, pages 27-29). By a copy of the quarterly report of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC for 3rd quarter of 2004 (vol. 4, pages 33-107). By a copy of an apostille (vol. 4, pages 145-175). By a letter to the Head Office of the Ministry of Justice for Rostov Region of 29 December 2004 (vol. 4, page 176). By a notice of the time and venue of a court hearing (vol. 4, page 177). By a court order for service of documents No. 12 of 29 December 2004 (vol. 4, page 178). By a copy of a power of attorney of 24 December 2004, pursuant to which the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp., represented by the director Roger Carpenter, authorises Sorokin Viktor Aleksandrovich, registered at the address: Apt. 22, Block 2, 37 ul. 2-ya Vladimirskaya to represent the interests of the company in all courts of all instances (vol. 4, page 179). By an inventory of documents (vol. 4, pages 181-182). [signature]

39
[By] a copy of a licence to conduct banking operations No. 3409 (vol. 4, pages 183184). By a bank guarantee of 28 December 2004, pursuant to which CB Universal Savings Bank LLC guarantees to the beneficiary (TerraSoftLLC) performance of obligations by the principal (Colchecter Group Trading Corp.) in respect of payment of the sum of losses sustained, upon presentation of an arbitrazh court decision that has come into legal force, which establishes the amount of losses sustained by the Beneficiary in connection with the granting of interim relief by the arbitrazh court in respect of the Principals claim, in an amount not greater than RUR 3,140,384 (vol. 4, page 185). By a copy of a ruling of 30 December 2004 to return an appeal complaint (vol. 4, page 186). By an application of Larin D.V. in Case No. A53-445/2005-S3-40 (vol. 4, page 187). By power of attorney No. 1 of ING Bank Eurasia CJSC of 26 January 2005 (vol. 4, pages 188-189). By a certified copy of a covering letter addressed to the Prosecutor for the Central Administrative District of Moscow (vol. 4, page 190). By a petition to rescind an order for interim relief, of 13 January 2005, with attached copies of documents (vol. 4, pages 231-245). By a ruling of 14 January 2005 (vol. 4, page 246). By a petition of Larin D.V. (vol. 4, page 247). By a ruling to rescind an order for interim relief, of 18 January 2005 (vol. 4, page 248). By power of attorney No. 022-M105 of 13 January 2005 (vol. 4, page 249). By a statement of clarification of a claim, of 14 January 2005 (vol. 4, page 250). By a statement of clarification of a claim, of 17 January 2005 (vol. 4, page 251). By a letter to the 1st inter-district division of the Federal Court Bailiffs Service for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, of 24 January 2005 (vol. 4, page 252). By a letter to the Head Office of the Ministry of Justice for Rostov Region, of 24 January 2005 (vol. 4, page 253). By a court order for service of documents No. 13 of 20 January 2005 (vol. 4, page 254). By postal receipt stubs (vol. 4, pages 255-259). By a ruling on preparation for a court hearing, of 11 March 2005 (vol. 4, page 260). By a copy of a petition to dismiss a claim, of 23 April 2005 (vol. 4, pages 261-263). By a copy of power of attorney No. 1 of 26 January 2005 (vol. 4, pages 264-265). [By] a copy of an application for interim relief (vol. 4, page 266). [By] a copy of a statement of claim (vol. 4, pages 267-268). By a copy of a power of attorney in the name of Sorokin V.A. (vol. 4, page 269). By a copy of a ruling to initiate enforcement proceedings, prepare a case for a court hearing and set a preliminary court hearing, of 29 December 2004 (vol. 4, pages 270-271). By a copy of a ruling to grant interim relief, of 30 December 2004 (vol. 4, pages 272273). By a copy of a share sale and purchase agreement of 22 November 2004 (vol. 4, pages 275-277). By a copy of a submission to the chairman of the judges evaluation panel of Rostov Region (vol. 4, pages 303-306). By the record of court proceedings in Case No. A53-445/2005-S3-40 of 24 April 2005 (vol. 4, page 307). By a ruling on Case No. A53-445/2005-S3-40 of 24 April 2005 (vol. 4, page 308). By a petition to dismiss a claim, of 23 April 2005 (vol. 4, pages 309-311). By power of attorney No. 1 of 26 January 2005 (vol. 4, pages 312-313) [signature]

40
By a postal receipt (vol. 4, page 314). By the record of court proceedings in Case No. A53-445/2005-S3-40 of 28 March 2005 (vol. 4, page 315). By a ruling on Case No. A53-445/2005-S3-40 of 28 March 2005 (vol. 4, page 316). Vol. 5 By the record of the presentation of photographs of Voronkov Oleg Yurevich for identification, of 6 April 2005, according to which the identifying witness Mishchenko A.V. inspected photographs presented for identification and stated that photograph No. 2 is an image of the person who presented to Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court, on behalf of the firm Colchecter Group Trading Corp., a claim and a petition to impose seizure on shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, and also signed in the name of Sorokin V.A. in the log recording the issuance of writs of execution, and presented to staff of the Clerks Office a passport in the name of Sorokin V.A.; the witness identified Voronkov Oleg Yurevich (vol. 5, pages 2023). By the record of the presentation of photographs of Voronkov Oleg Yurevich for identification, of 6 April 2005, according to which the identifying witness Ocheretina Ye.S. inspected photographs presented for identification and stated that the image of the person in photograph No. 2 shows the man who presented himself as Sorokin V.A. when registering a writ of execution for the seizure of shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC and also signed in the name of Sorokin V.A. in the log recording the issuance of writs of execution, and presented to staff of the Clerks Office a passport in the name of Sorokin V.A.; as a result of the identification procedure, Voronkov Oleg Yurevich was identified (vol. 5, pages 28-31). By the record of the presentation of photographs of Pechkin Aleksei Nikolaevich for identification, of 7 April 2005, according to which the identifying witness Mishchenko A.V. inspected photographs presented for identification and stated that the image of the person in photograph No. 2 shows a man very similar to the man whom she saw several times in the building of Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court on 29 December 2004, the day on which the person who presented himself as Sorokin V.A. filed a claim on behalf of the firm Colchecter Group Trading Corp. and filed a petition to impose seizure on shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC; as a result of the identification procedure, Pechkin A.N. was identified (vol. 5, pages 36-40). By a certified copy of the ruling of Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court of 30 December 2004 to grant interim relief in respect of Case No. A53-445/2005-S3-40, pursuant to which the court granted the application of Colchecter Group Trading Corp. and imposed seizure on 6,039,200 ordinary nominal uncertified shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC with a nominal value of RUR 0.25, state registration issue number [No.]1-01-00081-A, held by the professional participant in the securities market, ING BANK (Eurasia) CJSC. By the record of 9 February 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of Irkutsk Region Arbitrazh Court (volume 6, pages 42-45) By the record of 26 August 2005 of the inspection of items (documents) removed during a seizure at the premises of Irkutsk Region Arbitrazh Court (volume 6, pages 232234). By the files of arbitrazh case No. A19-1964/05-6: By an application seeking enforcement of the specific performance of obligations, pursuant to which the claimant (Colchecter Group Trading Corp.) petitions the court to order the respondent (Shimlen LLC) to perform obligations relating to the transfer to the claimant of 6,039,200 ordinary nominal uncertified shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, state registration issue number No. 1-01-00081-A, by re-registration of these shares to the claimants account and to order the nominal holder [signature]

41
of the shareholders register (ING Bank Eurasia CJSC) to enter the relevant amendments in the depositary record system (vol. 6, pages 47-48). By an application for interim relief, pursuant to which the claimant (Colchecter Group Trading Corp.) petitions the court to impose seizure on 6,039,200 ordinary nominal uncertified shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC with a nominal value of RUR 0.25, state registration issue number 1-01-00081-A, held by a professional participant in the securities market ING BANK (Eurasia) CJSC (volume 6, page 49). [By] a bank guarantee of 31 December 2004, pursuant to which CB Universal Savings Bank LLC guarantees to the beneficiary (Shimlen LLC) performance of obligations by the principal (Colchecter Group Trading Corp.) in respect of payment of the sum of losses sustained, upon presentation of an arbitrazh court decision that has come into legal force, which establishes the amount of losses sustained by the Beneficiary in connection with the granting of interim relief by the arbitrazh court in respect of the Principals claim, in an amount not greater than RUR 3,261,168 (vol. 6, page 50). By a copy of a securities sale and purchase agreement of 22 November 2004, under which Shimlen LLC, represented by the general director Senkin S.I. transfers to the ownership of the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp., represented by the director Roger Carpenter, 6,039,200 ordinary nominal uncertified shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC with a nominal value of RUR 0.25 each, at the price of RUR 0.54 per share (vol. 6, pages 51-53). By a copy of a licence to conduct banking operations No. 3409 (vol. 6, pages 54-55). By a copy of documents in a foreign language, on 36 sheets, the text of which contains the name Colchecter Group Trading Corp. (pages 56-91) By a copy of an apostille (vol. 6, pages 92-123). By a copy of the quarterly report of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC for 3rd quarter of 2004 (pages 124-198) By a certified copy of a ruling to initiate proceedings in respect of a statement of claim and prepare the case for a preliminary court hearing, of 14 January 2005 (vol. 6, page 199). By a certified copy of a ruling of Irkutsk Region Arbitrazh Court of 14 January 2005 in Case No. A19-1964/05-6, pursuant to which the court granted the application of Colchecter Group Trading Corp. and imposed seizure on 6,039,200 ordinary nominal uncertified shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC with a nominal value of RUR 0.25, state registration issue number 1-01-00081-A, held by a professional participant in the securities market ING BANK (Eurasia) CJSC (pages 200-201). By a certified copy of writ of execution No. 309 in respect of Case No. A19-1964/056 of 14 January 2005 (page 202). [By] a petition to rescind an order for interim relief, of 31 January 2005 (pages 203205). By a petition to dismiss a claim, of 31 January 2005 (pages 206-208). By a certified copy of the record of court proceedings in Case No. A19-1964/05-6 of 31 January 2005 (page 209). By a certified copy of a ruling in Case No. A19-1964/05-6 of 31 January 2005 (pages 210-211). [By] an application of 31 January 2005 (page 212). [By] a copy of a power of attorney from ING Bank (Eurasia) CJSC (pages 213-214). By a copy of documents in a foreign language, with a notarised apostille (pages 215231). Vol. 7 [signature]

42
By the record, of 11 March 2005, of the presentation of photographs of Albayev Sergei Aleksandrovich for identification, according to which the identifying witness Smoliakov A.V. inspected photographs presented for identification and stated that in the person shown in photograph No. 3, he recognises the person who was driving a Volkswagen Sharan car on 12 January 2005. This car was travelling behind a dark-coloured Mercedes car, in which, in addition to the driver and a passenger, the bailiff Smoliakov A.V., of the 1st division of the Federal Court Bailiffs Service Head Office for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, was travelling to the premises of the bank in the area of the metro station Year of 1905 to conduct enforcement proceedings. Later, he saw the person shown in photograph No. 3 in the premises of the bank [and] later, this person was present during the enforcement proceedings conducted by court bailiff Kalugin A.A., related to the seizure of shares pursuant to a writ of execution of Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court, in the capacity of a witness; he identified Albayev A.S. (pages 93-98). By the report of 23 March 2005 of the search at the premises of Satellite Consulting Centre LLC (pages 283-290). By the record of 21 April 2005 of the inspection of items (documents) removed during a search at the premises of Satellite Consulting Centre LLC (pages 291-309). Vol. 8 By the record of 27 January 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of the depositary of ING Bank (Eurasia) CJSC, during which video-surveillance photographs of clients visiting the bank on 11-13 January and electronic tangible media of the information were removed (pages 26-28). By the record of 24 March 2005 of the inspection of items (documents) removed during a search at the premises of the depositary of ING Bank (Eurasia) CJSC (pages 29-31). By the video-surveillance films 8: Cam[era] 8 of ING Bank (Eurasia), printed out during the inspection of items (documents) on 24 March 2005, from black Verbatim diskettes with the serial number 4HO9G3 (pages 32-85). By a letter of the head of the information security service of ING Bank (Eurasia) CJSC of 10 February 2005, according of [sic] which the building at the address: 31 ul. Krasnaya Presnya, Moscow was entered on 12 January 2005 at 10 hours 30 minutes by a group of court bailiffs comprising: Zuikov A., Kalugin A., Klinishev V., Korshunov, Petrov E., Petrunin S., Smoliakov, [and the civilians] Sorokin, Tyukayev, Albayev and Voronkov (page 93). By the record of 3 February 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of the depositary of ING Bank (Eurasia), during which the following documents were removed: - a list of the shareholders of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC; - a depositary agreement of 29 January 2004; - a depositary agreement of 16 December 2004 with the broker company Cartu Broker LLC; - a depositary agreement of 10 October 2004 with the company Belford Holding[s] Limited; - a depositary agreement of 6 December 2004 with the company Leyland Investment[s] Limited; a depositary agreement of 10 December 2004 with the company Kilmory Service[s] Limited; a depositary agreement of 28 April 2004 with Cartu Bank; a depositary agreement of 21 January 2005 with the Bank of Foreign Trade [Vneshtorgbank]; a depositary agreement of 10 December 2004 with the company Garvald Investment[s] Limited; [signature]

43

a depositary agreement of 6 December 2004 with the company CG Capital LLC; a depositary agreement of 6 December 2004 with the company Ternhill Investments Limited; a depositary agreement of 6 December 2004 with the company Parkeston Holding[s] Limited; the regulations of ING Bank (Eurasia) CJSC for execution of depositary transactions; a copy of a general licence to conduct banking operations No. 2495 of 28 May 2002; a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the board of directors of International Netherlands [Group] Bank [ING] Eurasia, of 19 April 1996; a copy of minute No. 3 of the meeting of the board of directors of ING Bank (Eurasia) CJSC, of 17 May 2004; a copy of minute No. 1 of the annual general meeting of shareholders of International Netherlands [Group] Bank Eurasia, of 18 April 1996; a copy of the charter of ING Bank (Eurasia) CJSC, of 23 September 2002; a copy of the licence to execute depositary transactions No. 177-03728-000100, of 7 December 2000; an extract from the charter of ING Bank (Eurasia) CJSC of 1997, registered by notary No. 1E3383; a card with sample signatures and imprints of a seal[,] registered by the notary Markov V.V. No. 1E3747; a copy of the certificate of registration in the Ministry for Taxes and Fees 77 No. 007858845 of 7 October 2002; a copy of power of attorney No. 338-s/04; a questionnaire on the registered entity ING Bank (Eurasia) CJSC; notarised copies of the charter documents of the company Belford Holding[s] Limited; notarised copies of the charter documents of the company Garvald Investment[s] Limited; notarised copies of the charter documents of the company Kilmory Service[s] Limited; notarised copies of the charter documents of the company Leyland Investment[s] Limited; notarized copies of the charter documents of the company Parkeston Holding[s] Limited notarised copies of the charter documents of the company Ternhill Investment[s] Limited; a copy of the certificate of registration in tax office 77 No. 006942273 of JSC (Joint-Stock Company) Cartu Bank; notarised copies of the charter documents of the broker company Cartu Broker; notarised copies of bank licence No. 229 of JSC Cartu Bank; notarised copies of the charter documents of JSC Cartu Bank; notarised copies of a card with sample signatures and imprints of the seal of the Bank of Foreign Trade; notarized copies of amendment and addition No. 2, entered in the charter of OJSC Bank of Foreign Trade, of 29 August 2003; a copy of amendment No. 4 in [the charter of] OJSC Bank of Foreign Trade [Vneshtorgbank] of 7 October 2004; the charter of OJSC Vneshtorgbank of 25 June 2002; amendment and addition No. 1 of 23 July 2003 in the charter of OJSC Bank of Foreign Trade [Vneshtorgbank]; [signature]

44
a copy of licence No. 177-06497-0001000 of 25 March 2003 issued to OJSC Bank of Foreign Trade [Vneshtorgbank]; a copy of general licence No. 1000 to conduct banking operations issued to OJSC Bank of Foreign Trade [Vneshtorgbank], of 18 July 2002; a copy of the certificate of registration in tax register 77 No. 005374791 of 22 November 2002; a copy of amendment No. 3 entered in the charter of OJSC Bank of Foreign Trade [Vneshtorgbank] of 3 June 2004; a copy of the charter of CG Capital LLC; a copy of the certificate of state registration of CG Capital LLC No. 1178 of 27 February 2001; a copy of the certificate of registration in tax office 46 No. 0057420 issued to CG Capital LLC; a copy of the certificate of entry of a record in EGR[U]L (Unified State Register of [Legal] Entities) 46 No. 000296904 issued to CG Capital LLC; a copy of the certificate of entry of a record in EGR[U]L (Unified State Register of [Legal] Entities) 46 No. 000297881 issued to CG Capital LLC; a copy of the certificate of 15 February 2001 OKPO [General Classifier of Enterprises and Organisations] 53320816, issued to CG Capital LLC; a copy of the amendment entered in the charter of CG Capital LLC of 15 May 2001 No. 499; bound orders; application forms for depositary accounts; transaction recaords of a personal depositary account (vol. 8, pages 120-389; vol. 9, pages 1-353; vol. 10, pages 1-376)

Vol. 11 By the record of 3 February 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC (pages 70-71) By the record of 30 August 2005 of the inspection of documents removed during a seizure at the premises of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC (pages 347-349). By documents seized at CB Universal Savings Bank LLC By Agreement No. BG-2/2004 on the provision of a bank guarantee of 28 December 2004 (pages 72-73). By the certificate of acceptance of a bank guarantee under Agreement No. BG-2/2004 of 28 December 2004 (page 74). By the supplementary agreement to Agreement No. BG-2/2004 on the provision of a bank guarantee of 28 December 2004 (page 75). By a letter to the chairman of the board of CB USB [Commercial Bank Universal Savings Bank] LLC in the name of Sorokin V.A. (page 76). By the minutes of the credit committee meeting of CB USB LLC of 28 December 2004 (page 77). By power of attorney No. K-1/08 of 7 December 2004 on behalf of R. Carpenter in the name of Sorokin V.A. (page 78). By a copy of the passport in the name of Sorokin V.A. series 6801 No. 303305 (pages 79-81). By a copy of a certificate in a foreign language, certified by the imprint of the seal of Co[l]checter Group Trading Corp. (page 82). By a copy of the articles of association of Co[l]checter Group Trading Corp. (pages 116-148).

[signature]

45

[By] the record of 16 February 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of the CB Universal Savings Bank LLC (pages 151-152) By the record of 30 August 2005 of the inspection of documents removed during a seizure at the premises of the CB Universal Savings Bank LLC (pages 356-358). By documents seized at CB Universal Savings Bank LLC - the instruction to the accounts department No. 2 of 11 January 2005 (page 153). By a notarised copy of power of attorney No. K-1/08 of 7 December 2004 on behalf of R. Carpenter in the name of Sorokin V.A. (page 154). By an order for issuance of a [bank] guarantee, of 28 December 2004, for the amount of RUR 3,140,384.00 (vol. 11, pages 155-156). By memorandum No. 2 of 11 January 2005 (page 157). By a certificate of acceptance of a bank guarantee under Agreement No. BG-3/2004 of 11 January 2005 (page 158). By a copy of the passport in the name of Sorokin V.A. series 6801 No. 303305 (pages 159-161). By a questionnaire on the client, the legal entity Co[l]checter Group Trading Corp. (pages 162-166). By a copy of Agreement No. 44-KhD/sl to sub-lease non-residential premises, of 15 October 2004 (pages 167-170). By the order for the issuance of a bank guarantee, of 31 December 2004, for the amount of RUR 3,261,168.00 (page 171). By a letter to the chairman of the board of CB USB [Commercial Bank Universal Savings Bank] LLC in the name of Sorokin V.A. (page 172). By Agreement No. BG-3/2004 on the provision of a bank guarantee, of 31 December 2004 (pages 173-174). By the supplementary agreement to Agreement No. BG-3/2004 on the provision of a bank guarantee, of 31 December 2004 (page 175). By a copy of a statement of claim filed at Moscow City Arbitrazh Court on 3 February 2005 (pages 176-179). By a copy of the simple promissory notes: series SPN No. 0100002, SPN No. 0100001, SPN No. 0100004; SPN No. 0100005; SPN No. 010003; SPN No. 0100011 (vol. 11, pages 180-185). By sample signatures of employees, valid from 10 October 2004 (pages 186-189). By a copy of a letter to Shimlen LLC of 2 February 2005 (page 190). By a copy of a letter to TerraSoft LLC of 2 February 2005 (page 191). By a copy of a letter to Sorokin V.A. of 2 February 2005 (pages 192-193). By a list of clients of CB USB LLC (pages 194-199); By a statement of claim filed at Moscow City Arbitrazh Court, of 3 February 2005 (pages 201-202). By the record of 28 February 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC (pages 204-205). By the record of 30 August 2005 of the inspection of items (documents) removed during a seizure at the premises of the CB Universal Savings Bank LLC (pages 352-353). By documents seized at CB Universal Savings Bank LLC[:] the minutes of the credit committee meeting of CB USB LLC of 28 December 2004 on the issuance of a bank guarantee to Co[l]checter Group Trading Corp. for the sum of RUR 3,261,168 (page 206). Vol. 14 By the minutes of the credit committee meeting of CB USB LLC of 28 December 2004 on issuance of a bank guarantee to Co[l]checter Group Trading Corp. for the sum of RUR 3,140, 384 (page 207). [signature]

46
By the record of 3 February 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of the Sovetskiy District Department for Taxes and Fees, Rostov-on-Don, during which the legal file of TerraSoft LLC was removed (vol. 14, pages 1-306; vol. 15, pages 5-247). Vol. 15 By the legal and accounts file of TerraSoft LLC removed during a seizure at the IMNS [Ministry for Taxes and Fees Inspectorate] for Sovetskiy District in Rostov-on-Don, as per the seizure record of 3 February 2005 Inspection of the documents established that the founder and general director of TerraSoft LLC is Aleksanov A.G. (pages 5-247). Vol. 16 By the record of 29 June 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of IMNS No. 28 for the South-Western Administrative District of Moscow, during which the legal file of Satellite Consulting Centre LLC was removed (pages 2-5). By the record of 6 June 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of IMNS No. 2 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, during which the legal file of Shimlen LLC was removed (pages 103-106) By the record of 16 June 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC, during which the legal files of Akvapolis Group LLC, Brainstorm LLC, Maxima LLC, Bastion Invest LLC and Astra Group LLC were removed (pages 131-134)

By the legal file of Shimlen LLC, removed during a seizure at IMNS No. 2 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, as per the seizure record of 6 June 2005. During inspection of the documents it was established that the founder and general director of Shimlen LLC is Senkin S.I. (pages 107-129) By the legal file of Satellite Consulting Centre LLC, removed during a seizure at IMNS No. 28 for the South-Western Administrative District of Moscow, as per the seizure record of 29 June 2005. Inspection of the documents established that the founder and general director of Satellite Consulting Centre LLC is Klyuyev D.V. (pages 6-101) By the legal file[s] of Akvapolis Group LLC, Brainstorm LLC, Maxima LLC, Bastion Invest LLC and Astra Group LLC, removed during a seizure at CB Universal Savings Bank LLC, as per the seizure record of 16 June 2005. Inspection of the documents established that the general director of Akvapolis Group LLC is Popovkin S.Ye., the participants [founders] of Akvapolis Group LLC are Tyukayev Yu.I. and Popovkin S.Ye.; the general director of Brainstorm LLC is Zabolotkin A.N.; the participants [founders] of Brainstorm LLC are Samedov Yu.Kh. and Zabolotkin A.N.; the general director of Maxima LLC is Plaksin G.N., the participants [founders] of Maxima LLC are Orlov S.V. and Plaksin G.N.; the general director of Bastion Invest LLC is Chuverin A.V., the participants [founders] of Bastion Invest LLC are Panin Z.Yu. and Chuverin A.V; the general director of Astra Group LLC is Makarov Yu.G., the participants [founders] of Astra Group LLC are Bakharev A.V. and Makarov Yu.G. (vol. [16], pages 135-300) Vol. 17

[signature]

47

By the record of 29 June 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of IMNS No. 43 for the Northern Administrative District of Moscow, during which the legal file of PKF Redan was removed (pages 43-46) By the record of 29 June 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of IMNS No. 28 for the South-Western Administrative District of Moscow, during which the legal files of Brainstorm LLC and Bastion Invest LLC were removed (pages 280-283). By the record of 2 June 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of IMNS No. 1 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, during which the legal file of Rusoptiktsentr [Russ Optic Centre] LLC was removed (pages 226-229) - the legal file of Brainstorm LLC, removed during a seizure at IMNS No. 28 for the South-Western Administrative District of Moscow, as per the seizure records of 21 June 2005 and 28 June 2005. Inspection of the documents established that the general director of Brainstorm LLC is Zabolotkin A.N., the founder[s] of Brainstorm LLC is [sic] Zabolotkin A.N. and Samedov Yu.Kh. (pages 240-278, 284-289) - the legal file of Bastion Invest LLC, removed during a seizure at IMNS No. 28 for the South-Western Administrative District of Moscow, as per the seizure records of 21 June 2005 and 28 June 2005. Inspection of the documents established that the general director of Bastion Invest LLC is Chuverin A.V., the founder[s] of Bastion Invest LLC is [sic] Chuverin A.V. and Panin Z.Yu. (pages 204-239, 290-295) - the legal file of PKF Redan LLC, removed during a seizure at the premises of IMNS No. 43 for the Northern Administrative District of Moscow, as per the seizure record of 29 June 2005. Inspection of the documents established that the general director of PKF Redan LLC is Manturova Ye.A. and the founder of PKF Redan LLC is Astra Group LLC (pages 47-198) By the legal file of Traviata Firm LLC, removed during a seizure at the premises of IMNS No. 9 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, as per the seizure record of 20 June 2005. Inspection of the documents established that the general director of Traviata Firm LLC is Toporkov Ye.A. and the founder of Traviata Firm LLC is Mercury ARGO LLC (pages 6-41) Vol. 18 By the record of 22 June 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of IMNS No. 25 for the Southern Administrative District of Moscow, during which the legal file of Astra Group LLC and Akvapolis Group LLC was removed (pages 127-130) By the record of 24 June 2005 of the seizure of documents, at the premises of IMNS No. 6 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, during which the legal file of Maxima LLC was removed (pages 267-270). [By] the record of 31 May 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of IMNS No. 13 for the Northern Administrative District of Moscow, during which the legal file of Audit Agency LLC was removed (pages 2-5). [By] the record of 2 June 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of IMNS No. 1 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, during which the legal file of Rusoptiktsentr LLC was removed (pages 226-229). [By] the record of 2 June 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of IMNS No. 1 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, during which the legal file of Mercurys Stable [Manezh Merkuriy] LLC was removed (pages 246-249).

[signature]

48
[By] the record of 2 June 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of IMNS No. 1 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, during which the legal file of Manezh Merkuriy [Mercurys Stable] LLC was removed (pages 246-249). By the record of 2 June 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of IMNS No. 1 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, during which the legal file of Rusoptiktsentr LLC was removed (pages 226-229). By the record of 2 June 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of IMNS No. 1 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, during which the legal file of Manezh Merkuriy LLC was removed (pages 246-249). By the legal file of Maxima LLC, removed during a seizure at IMNS No. 6 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, as per the seizure record of 24 June 2005. Inspection of the documents established that the general director of Maxima LLC is Plaksin G.N. and the founder[s] of Maxima LLC is [sic] Orlov S.V. and Plaksin G.N (pages 271-314). By the legal file of Astra Group LLC, removed during a seizure at the premises of IMNS No. 25 for the Southern Administrative District of Moscow, as per the seizure record of 22 June 2005. Inspection of the documents established that the general director of Astra Group LLC is Makarov Yu.G. and the founder[s] of Astra Group LLC are Makarov Yu.G. and Bakharev A.V. (pages 131-186). By the legal file of Akvapolis Group LLC, removed during a seizure at the premises of IMNS No. 25 for the Southern Administrative District of Moscow, as per the seizure record of 28 June 2005. Inspection of the documents established that the general director of Akvapolis Group LLC is Popovkin S.Ye. and the founder[s] of Astra Group LLC are Tyukayev Yu.I. and Popovkin S.Ye. (pages 187-224). By the legal file of Audit Agency LLC, removed during a seizure at the premises of IMNS No. 13 for the Northern Administrative District of Moscow, as per the seizure record of 31 May 2005. Inspection of the documents established that the general director of Audit Agency LLC is Voichenko G.V. and the founder of Audit Agency LLC is S-Version [S-Versiya] LLC (pages 6-125). By the legal file of Rusoptiktsentr LLC, removed during a seizure at IMNS No. 1 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, as per the seizure record of 2 June 2005. Inspection of the documents established that the general director of Rusoptiktsentr is Popovkin S.Ye. and the founder of Rusoptiktsentr is Akvapolis Group LLC (pages 230-244). By the legal file of Manezh Merkuriy LLC, removed during a seizure at IMNS No. 1 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, as per the seizure record of 2 June 2005. Inspection of the documents established that the general director of Manezh Merkuriy is Zabolotkin A.N. and the founder of Manezh Merkuriy LLC is Brainstorm LLC (pages 250265). Vol. 19 By the record of 20 June 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of IMNS No. 9 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, during which the legal file of InformAuditAktiv LLC was removed (pages 2-5). By the record of 21 June 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of IMNS No. 44 for the North-Western Administrative District of Moscow, during which the legal file of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC was removed (pages 165-168). By the record of 6 July 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC, during which payment order No. 020 of 29 October 2004 and a bank account statement of Maxima LLC for the period from 24 October 2004 to 30 June 2005 were removed (pages 96-99). [signature]

49
The record of 6 July 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC, during which payment order No. 982 of 29 October 2004 and a bank account statement of Akvapolis Group LLC for the period from 24 October 2004 to 30 June 2005 were removed (pages 110-113). The record of 6 June [sic] 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC, during which payment order No. 62 of 29 October 2004 and a bank account statement of Bastion Invest LLC for the period from 24 October 2004 to 30 June 2005 were removed (pages 124-127). The record of 6 July 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC, during which payment order No. 495 of 29 October 2004 and a bank account statement for Astra Group LLC for the period from 24 October 2004 to 30 June 2005 were removed (pages 138-141). By the record of 6 July 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC, during which payment order No. 980 of 29 October 2004 and a bank account statement of Brainstorm LLC for the period from 24 October 2004 to 30 June 2005 were removed (pages 152-155). The record of 14 July 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC, during which payment order No. 2 of 2 November 2004 was removed (pages 103-106). The record of 14 July 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC, during which payment order No. 1 of 2 November 2004 was removed (pages 117-120). The record of 14 July 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC, during which payment order No. 1 of 2 November 2004 was removed (pages 131-134). By the record of 14 July 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC, during which payment order No. 1 of 2 November 2004 was removed (pages 145-148). The record of 14 July 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC, during which payment order No. 1 of 2 November 2004 was removed (pages 159-162). By the legal file of InformAuditAktiv LLC, removed during a seizure at IMNS No. 9 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, as per the seizure record of 20 June 2005. Inspection of the documents established that the general director of InformAuditAktiv is Klyuyev D.V. (pages 6-93). By the legal file of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC, removed during a seizure at IMNS No. 44 for the North-Western Administrative District of Moscow, as per the seizure record of 21 June 2005. Inspection of the documents established that the chairman of the board of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC is Zhlobitskiy I.L. and the founders of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC are Audit Agency LLC, Manezh Merkuriy LLC, PKF Redan LLC, Rusoptiktsentr LLC and Traviata Firm LLC (pages 169-392). By payment order No. 980 of 29 October 2004 to transfer funds in the amount of RUR 5,600,000 from the account of AMK Market LLC to the account of Brainstorm LLC, payment order No. 1 of 2 November 2004 to transfer funds in the amount of RUR 5,465,369 from the account of Brainstorm LLC to the account of Lavanda Centre LLC (as payment for shares in CB Universal Savings Bank LLC) and a bank account statement of Brainstorm LLC for the period from 24 October 2004 to 30 June 2005, removed during a seizure at CB Universal Savings Bank LLC, as per the seizure records of 6 July 2005 and 14 July 2005 (pages 156-158, 163).

[signature]

50
By payment order No. 495 of 29 October 2004 to transfer funds in the amount of RUR 5,600,000 from the account of MegaLight LLC to the account of Astra Group LLC, payment order No. 1 of 2 November 2004 to transfer funds in the amount of RUR 5,465,369 from the account of Astra Group LLC to the account of Artex Plus LLC (as payment for shares in CB Universal Savings Bank LLC) and a bank account statement of Astra Group LLC for the period from 24 October 2004 to 30 June 2005, removed during a seizure at CB Universal Savings Bank LLC, as per the seizure records of 6 July 2005 and 14 July 2005 (pages 142-144, 149). By payment order No. 62 of 29 October 2004 to transfer funds in the amount of RUR 5,600,000 from the account of Sputnik LLC to the account of Bastion Invest LLC, payment order No. 1 of 2 November 2004 to transfer funds in the amount of RUR 5,465,369 from the account of Bastion Invest LLC to the account of Investline LLC (as payment for shares in CB Universal Savings Bank LLC) and a bank account statement of Bastion Invest LLC for the period from 24 October 2004 to 30 June 2005, removed during a seizure at CB Universal Savings Bank LLC, as per the seizure records of 6 July 2005 and 14 July 2005 (pages 128130, 135). By payment order No. 982 of 29 October 2004 to transfer funds in the amount of RUR 5,600,000 from the account of Sonex LLC to the account of Akvapolis Group LLC, payment order No. 1 of 2 November 2004 to transfer funds in the amount of RUR 5,465,369 from the account of Akvapolis Group LLC to the account of Stroykomplektservis LLC (as payment for shares in CB Universal Savings Bank LLC) and a bank account statement of Akvapolis Group LLC for the period from 24 October 2004 to 30 June 2005, removed during a seizure at CB Universal Savings Bank LLC, as per the seizure records of 6 July 2005 and 14 July 2005 (pages 114-116, 121). By payment order No. 020 of 29 October 2004 to transfer funds in the amount of RUR 5,600,000 from the account of Brand City LLC to the account of Maxima LLC, payment order No. 2 of 2 November 2004 to transfer funds in the amount of RUR 5,465,369 from the account of Maxima LLC to the account of Forest LLC (as payment for shares in CB Universal Savings Bank LLC) and a bank account statement of Maxima LLC for the period from 24 October 2004 to 30 June 2005, removed during a seizure at CB Universal Savings Bank LLC, as per the seizure records of 6 July 2005 and 14 July 2005 (pages 100-102, 107). Vol. 20 By the record of 29 August 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of CB [Commercial Bank] Test OJSC, during which bank account statements of Sonex LLC and AMK Market LLC were removed (pages 137-140) By the record of 27 July 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of CB Iberus CJSC, during which the legal files of Brand City LLC and MegaLight LLC were removed (pages 2-5) By the record of 6 September 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of CB Iberus CJSC, during which bank account statements of Brand City LLC and MegaLight LLC were removed (pages 62-65) By the record of 22 July 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of CB Inturkhimbank OJSC [sic], during which the legal file of Sputnik LLC was removed (pages 104-107) By the record of 17 August 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of CB Interkhimbank OJSC, during which a bank account statement of Sputnik LLC was removed (pages 243-246)

[signature]

51
By the record of 15 March 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of Office No. 2 Taganskoye, Head Office of Finance Intelligence Unit (PFR) No. 10 Moscow, during which the legal file of InformAuditAktiv LLC was removed (pages 273-276). The legal file of InformAuditAktiv LLC, removed during a seizure at Office No. 2 Taganskoye, Head Office of Finance Intelligence Unit No. 10 Moscow, as per the seizure record of 15 March 2005. Inspection of the documents established that the general director of InformAuditAktiv is Klyuyev D.V. (pages 277-346). The legal file of Sputnik LLC, removed during a seizure at CB Interkhimbank OJSC, as per the seizure record of 22 July 2005. Inspection of the documents established that the general director of Sputnik LLC is Unazhokov Kh.Kh. (pages 108-134). By a bank account statement of Sputnik LLC for the period from 1 to 30 October 2004, removed during a seizure at CB Interkhimbank OJSC, as per the seizure record of 17 August 2005. Inspection of the documents established that on 29 October 2004 funds in the amount of RUR 5,600,000 were transferred from the account of Sputnik LLC to the account of Bastion Invest LLC (pages 247-247) [sic] By the legal file of MegaLight LLC, removed during a seizure at CB Iberus CJSC, as per the seizure record of 27 July 2005. Inspection of the documents established that the general director of MegaLight LLC is Molodova A.V. (pages 6-33). By a bank account statement of MegaLight LLC for the period from 1 to 30 October 2004, removed during a seizure at CB Iberus CJSC, as per the seizure record of 6 September 2005. Inspection of the documents established that on 29 October 2004 funds in the amount of RUR 5,600,000 were transferred from the account of MegaLight LLC to the account of Astra Group LLC (pages 66-85) By the legal file of Brand City LLC, removed during a seizure at CB Iberus CJSC, as per the seizure record of 27 July 2005. Inspection of the documents established that the general director of Brand City LLC is Amelkin A.A. (pages 34-59). By a bank account statement of Brand City LLC for the period from 1 to 30 October 2004, removed during a seizure at CB Iberus CJSC, as per the seizure record of 6 September 2005. Inspection of the documents established that on 29 October 2004 funds in the amount of RUR 5,600,000 were transferred from the account of Brand City LLC to the account of Maxima LLC (pages 86-102) By a bank account statement of AMK Market LLC for the period from 1 to 30 October 2004, removed during a seizure at CB Test OJSC, as per the seizure record of 29 August 2005. Inspection of the documents established that on 29 October 2004 funds in the amount of RUR 5,600,000 were transferred from the account of AMK Market LLC to the account of Brainstorm LLC (pages 141-198). By a bank account statement of Sonex LLC for the period from 1 to 30 October 2004, removed during a seizure at CB Test OJSC, as per the seizure record of 29 August 2005. Inspection of the documents established that on 29 October 2004 funds in the amount of RUR 5,600,000 were transferred from the account of Sonex LLC to the account of Akvapolis Group LLC (pages 199-240). Vol. 21

[signature]

52
By the record of 12 September 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of Joint-Stock Commercial (JSC) Federal Bank of Innovations and Development CJSC, during which the legal file of Forus Inotex LLC was removed (pages 142-146). By the record of 6 September 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of JSC Federal Bank of Innovations and Development CJSC, during which payment orders and a bank account statement of Forus Inotex LLC were removed (pages 187-190). By the record of 18 August 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of JSC Federal Bank of Innovations and Development CJSC, during which the legal file of Fora-M LLC was removed (pages 217-220). The record of 2 September 2005 of the seizure at the premises of JSC Federal Bank of Innovations and Development CJSC, during which payment orders and a bank account statement of Fora-M LLC were removed (pages 260-263). The record of 29 July 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of CB Test OJSC, during which the legal files of Sonex LLC and AMK Market were removed (pages 25). By the record of 6 September 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of CB Test OJSC, during which payment orders and a bank account statement of Sonex LLC were removed (pages 77-80). The legal file of Forus Inotex LLC, removed during a seizure at the premises of JSC Federal Bank of Innovations and Development CJSC, as per the seizure record of 12 September 2005. Inspection of the documents established that the general director of Forus Inotex LLC is Marshanov A.A. (pages 147-183). By a bank account statement of Forus Inotex LLC for the period from 23 July 2002 to 2 September 2005, removed during a seizure at JSC Federal Bank of Innovations and Development CJSC, as per the seizure record of 6 September 2005. Inspection of the documents established that on 17 December 2004 funds in the amount of RUR 40,000 were transferred from the account of Forus Inotex LLC to the account of Sonex LLC; on 29 December 2004 funds in the amount of RUR 14,000,000 were transferred from the account of Forus Inotex LLC to the account of Sonex LLC; on 13 January 2005 funds in the amount of RUR 2,650,000 were transferred from the account of Forus Inotex LLC to the account of Sonex LLC, (pages 194-214). By payment order No. 71 of 17 December 2004 to transfer funds in the amount of RUR 40,000 from the account of Forus Inotex LLC to the account of Sonex LLC; by payment order No. 76 of 29 December 2004 to transfer funds in the amount of RUR 14,000,000 from the account of Forus Inotex LLC to the account of Sonex LLC; by payment order No. 1 of 13 January 2005 to transfer funds in the amount of RUR 2,650,000 from the account of Forus Inotex LLC to the account of Sonex LLC (pages 191-193). By the legal file of Fora-M, removed during a seizure at the premises of JSC Federal Bank of Innovations and Development CJSC, as per the seizure record of 18 August 2005. During inspection of the documents it was established that the founder and general director of Fora-M LLC is Tarasov V.B. (pages 221-256). By a bank account statement of Fora-M LLC for the period from 30 October 2003 to 26 August 2005, removed during a seizure at JSC Federal Bank of Innovations and Development CJSC, as per the seizure record of 2 September 2005. Inspection of the documents established that on 17 January 2005 funds in the amount of RUR 14,000,000 were transferred from the account of Fora-M LLC to the account of Sonex LLC, on 21 January 2005 funds in the amount of RUR 12,840,000 were transferred from the account of Fora-M LLC to the account of Sonex LLC, on 24 January 2005 funds in the amount of RUR 8,600,000 were transferred from the account of Fora-M LLC to the account of Sonex LLC, (pages 268-301).

53
By payment order No. 277 of 17 January 2005 to transfer funds in the amount of RUR 14,000,000 from the account of Fora-M LLC to the account of Sonex LLC, by payment order No. 283 of 21 January 2005 to transfer funds in the amount of RUR 12,840,000 from the account of Fora-M LLC to the account of Sonex LLC, by payment order No. 284 of 24 January 2005 to transfer funds in the amount of RUR 8,600,000 from the account of Fora-M LLC to the account of Sonex LLC (pages 264-266). By the legal file of Sonex, removed during a seizure at the premises of CB Test OJSC, as per the seizure record of 29 July 2005. Inspection of the documents established that the founder and general director of Sonex LLC is Luzhetskiy Yu.V. (pages 6-35). By a bank account statement of Sonex LLC for the period from 17 December 2004 to 26 January 2005, removed during a seizure at CB Test OJSC, as per the seizure record of 6 September 2005. Inspection of the documents established that on 17 December 2004 funds in the amount of RUR 40,000 were transferred from the account of Forus Inotex LLC to the account of Sonex LLC, on 29 December 2004 funds in the amount of RUR 14,000,000 were transferred from the account of Forus Inotex LLC to the account of Sonex LLC, on 13 January 2005 funds in the amount of RUR 2,650,000 were transferred from the account of Forus Inotex LLC to the account of Sonex LLC, on 17 January 2005 funds in the amount of RUR 14,000,000 were transferred from the account of Fora-M LLC to the account of Sonex LLC, on 21 January 2005 funds in the amount of RUR 12,840,000 were transferred from the account of Fora-M LLC to the account of Sonex LLC, on 24 January 2005 funds in the amount of RUR 8,600,000 were transferred from the account of Fora-M LLC to the account of Sonex LLC (pages 87-140). By payment order No. 071 of 17 December 2004 to transfer funds in the amount of RUR 40,000 from the account of Forus Inotex LLC to the account of Sonex LLC, by payment order No. 076 of 29 December 2004 to transfer funds in the amount of RUR 14,000,000 from the account of Forus Inotex LLC to the account of Sonex LLC, by payment order No. 001 of 13 January 2005 to transfer funds in the amount of RUR 2,650,000 from the account of Forus Inotex LLC to the account of Sonex LLC, by payment order No. 277 of 17 January 2005 to transfer funds in the amount of RUR 14,000,000 from the account of Fora-M LLC to the account of Sonex LLC, by payment order No. 283 of 21 January 2005 to transfer funds in the amount of RUR 12,840,000 from the account of Fora-M LLC to the account of Sonex LLC, by payment order No. 284 of 24 January 2005 to transfer funds in the amount of RUR 8,600,000 from the account of Fora-M to the account of Sonex LLC (pages 81-86). By the legal file of AMK Market LLC, removed during a seizure at the premises of CB Test OJSC, as per the seizure record of 29 July 2005. Inspection of the documents established that the founder and general director of AMK Market LLC is Ivanova O.B. (pages 36-73). By the legal file of Sonex LLC, removed during the conduct of a seizure at the premises of CB Test OJSC, as per the seizure record of 29 July 2005. Inspection of the documents established that the founder and general director of Sonex LLC is Luzhetskiy Yu.V. (pages 6-35). By the record of 4 November 2005 of the inspection of items (documents) removed in a seizure at the premises of IMNS No. 28 for the South-Western Administrative District of Moscow, IMNS No.9 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, IMNS No.2 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, IMNS No. 44 for the North-Western Administrative District of Moscow and CB Universal Savings Bank LLC (pages 313-317). By the record of 2 November 2005 of the inspection of items (documents) removed in a seizure at the premises of IMNS No. 28 for the South-Western Administrative District of Moscow, IMNS No.9

54
for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, IMNS No. 2 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, IMNS No. 44 for the North-Western Administrative District of Moscow and CB Universal Savings Bank LLC (pages 305-308). [By] the record of 4 November 2005 of the inspection of items (documents) removed in a seizure at the premises of IMNS No. 13 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, IMNS 25 for the Southern Administrative District of Moscow, IMNS No. 43 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, IMNS No. 1 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, IMNS No.6 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, IMNS No. 9 for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, IMNS No. 28 for the South-Western Administrative District of Moscow (pages 309-312). By the record of 4 November 2005 of the inspection of items (documents) removed in a seizure at CB Test and CB JSC Federal Bank of Innovations and Development (pages 302304). Vol. 22 By documents seized at the premises of Satellite Consulting Centre LLC: - the charter documents and articles of association of Crocus LLC (General director Aleksanov Andrei Georgievich). - the charter documents and articles of association of Ost-Vest LLC (General director Plaksin Gennadiy Nikolaevich); - the charter documents and articles of association of Optim Service LLC (General director Plaksin Gennadiy Nikolaevich); - the charter documents and articles of association of Neo-Line LLC (General director Tyukayev Yuriy Ivanovich); - the charter documents and articles of association of Arsenal-M LLC (General director Tyukayev Yuriy Ivanovich); - the charter documents and articles of association of Group Consult LLC (General director Tyukayev Yuriy Ivanovich); - the charter documents and articles of association of AB Tekhnologiya Prava (Executive director Pavlov Andrei Akekseyevich); - the charter documents and articles of association of Satellite Consulting Centre LLC (General director Klyuyev Dmitriy Vladislavovich ); - the charter documents and articles of association of InformAuditAktiv LLC (General director Klyuyev Dmitriy Vladislavovich); - the charter documents and articles of association of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC; - by a photocopy of a passport of an RF citizen, series: 46 02 No. 921443 in the name of Tyukayev Yuriy Ivanovich; - by a photocopy of a passport of an RF citizen, series: 46 00 No. 832280 in the name of Tyukayeva Natalya Anatolevnya; - by a photocopy of a passport of an RF citizen, series: 46 01 No. 254898 in the name of Zabolotkina Olga Nikolaevna; - by a photocopy of a passport of an RF citizen, series: 46 05 No. 794594 in the name of Plaksin Gennadiy Nikolaevich ; - by a photocopy of a passport of an RF citizen, series: 63 03 No. 364 055 in the name of Popovkin Sergei Yevgenyevich, 2 copies; - by a photocopy of a passport of an RF citizen, series: 46 01 No. 254900 in the name of Zabolotkin Aleksei Nikolaevich; - by a photocopy of a passport of an RF citizen, series: 46 03 No. 666598 in the name of Samedov Yuriy Khanlarovich; - by a photocopy of a passport of an RF citizen, series: 46 02 No. 671680 in the name of Samedova Olga Viktorovna; - by a photocopy of a passport of an RF citizen, series: 63 03 No. 364056 in the name of Popovkina Svetlana Anatolyevna;

55

- by cards with sample signatures of the acting chairman of the board of CB Universal Savings Bank, Bogdanov N.S. and the deputy head accountant, Vinogradova L.N.; - by a sheet of A4 paper with a list beginning with the words: 1) Agafonov Viktor Aleksandrovich 347-87-18, 8-903-736-50-79 and ending with the words: 74) Shcheblyakova Yelena Aleksandrovna 915-56-81, holiday home 240-78-37, 8910-454-0800 (pages 13-224). The report of 10 August 2005 of the search at the premises of Renaissance Capital CJSC (pages 126-131). By the record of 11 August 2005 of the inspection of items (documents) removed in the search at the premises of Renaissance Capital CJSC (pages 216-221). Documents removed from the office of the president of Renaissance Capital CJSC, Kiselev O.V.: - a passport in the name of Ovechkin Sergei Mikhailovich, d.o.b. 2 August 1979, No. 45 07 413832, issued by the Passport-Visa Section of the Internal Affairs Authority (PVO OVD), Shchukino District, Moscow on 31 August 2004; - a copy of a ruling to refuse to initiate a criminal case, of 24 December 2004; - a dark blue folder with the inscription MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION FOR ARIANO TRADING LTD, in which are bound twenty sheets with English text, beginning with the words BELIZE THE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS and ending with the words: DATED THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2004; - sheets of white paper, fastened with a stapler in the left top corner, with English text, in the quantity of sixty sheets. The first sheet is filled with typewritten text, beginning with the words WE, ALPHA SERVICES LIMITED, REGISTERED OF [sic] ARIANO TRAIDING [sic] LTD,on the lower part of the sheet there are two stamps in dark blue ink containing English text in dark blue ink, and also an imprint of a dark blue seal with the inscription registrar general belize [sic]. The second sheet is filled by a photocopy of a certificate of registration in the text of which there is the name ARIANO TRAIDING [sic] LTD. The third sheet is filled with typewritten text in English, in the text of which there is the name ARIANO TRAIDING [sic] LTD. The fourth sheet is filled with typewritten text in English, in the text of which there is the name ALPHA SERVICES LIMITED. The fifth sheet is filled with typewritten text in English in the text [sic] of which there is the name ARIANO TRAIDING [sic] LTD. The sixth sheet is filled with typewritten text in English in the text [sic] of which there is the name ARIANO TRAIDING [sic] LTD, the text fills both sides of the sheet. The seventh sheet is filled with typewritten text in English in the text [sic] of which there is the name ALPHA SERVICES LIMITED, the text fills both sides of the sheet. A copy of a document on nine sheets, which is filled with typewritten text in English in the text [sic] of which there is the name ARIANO TRAIDING [sic] LTD; - a certificate of registration in English, in the text of which there is the name ARIANO TRAIDING [sic] LTD; - writ of execution No. 000003/9 of the Arbitrazh Court of the KarachaevoCherkesskaya Republic, city of Cherkessk, in respect of Case No. A 25-2299/04-9 of 15 January 2005 seeking recovery of 6,089,169 shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC. The claimant in respect of this writ of execution is the company ARIANO TRAIDING [sic] LTD; - a power of attorney on behalf of ARIANO TRAIDING [sic] LTD. in the name of Ovechkin Sergei Mikhailovich, signed in the directors handwriting, written in dark blue ink; - a copy of the certificate of inventory and seizure of 12 January 2005 drawn up by court bailiff of the 1st inter-district division of the Federal Court Bailiffs Service Head Office for Moscow pursuant to

56

a writ of execution of 30 December 2004 in respect of Case No. A53-445/2005-S3-40, issued by Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court, to impose seizure on securities and grant interim relief for the demands of the claimant Colchecter Group Trading Corp.; - a copy of a list of holders of securities of the issuer Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC; - a copy of a depositary account statement of the company Belform Holgings [sic] Limited on two sheets; - a copy of a depositary account statement of the company Garvald Investment[s] Limited on two sheets; - a copy of a depositary account statement of the company Kilmory Services Limited on two sheets; - a copy of a depositary account statement of the company Leyland Investment[s] Limited on two sheets; - a copy of a depositary account statement of the company Parkeston Holgings [sic] Limited on two sheets; - a copy of a deposit account statement of the company Ternhill Investment[s] Limited on two sheets; - a copy of a depositary account statement of the company CG Capital LLC on two sheets; - a copy of a memorandum to the head court bailiff for Moscow, Komarov A.N. of 11 January 2005; - a copy of a petition to call out security bailiffs, of 11 January 2005; - a copy of a memorandum report to the Federal Court Bailiffs Service Head Office for Moscow, of 11 January 2005; - a copy of a power of attorney issued by ING BANK (Eurasia) CJSC in the name of Berezhnoy S.I., of 1 January 2005; - a copy of a power of attorney issued by ING BANK (Eurasia) CJSC in the name of Zhuravkov A.Yu., of 1 January 2005; - a copy of a ruling to restrict the rights of holders of securities, of 12 January 2005; - a copy of a report on the participation of court bailiffs of 12 January 2005; - a copy of a letter to the director of the Federal Court Bailiffs Service, Chief Court Bailiff of the Russian Federation, Vinnichenko N.A., of 13 January 2005; - a copy of a memorandum on enforcement proceeding No. 4226/11/05 of 11 January 2005; - a copy of a ruling of 13 January 2005 to rescind seizure of shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC; - a copy of a letter to court bailiff Kalugin A.A. of 14 January 2005; - a copy of a letter to court bailiff Kalugin A.A. No. 096-01/2005 of 14 January 2005; - a copy of a demand to provide statements of bank accounts in which shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC are held; - a copy of a ruling to initiate enforcement proceeding No. 226/11/05 of 11 January 2005; - a copy of a letter to the first inter-district division of the Federal Court Bailiffs Service for the Central Administrative District of Moscow; - a copy of a power of attorney of Sorokin V.A. of 24 December 2004; - a copy of a statement of clarification of a ruling, of 14 January 2005; - a copy of a letter to court bailiff Kalugin A.A. of 14 January 2005; - a violet-coloured loose-leaf binder with seven plastic files inserted in it, one of which contains a sheet of white paper with type-written text beginning with the words for your consideration. Plan. 1. Presentation of a writ of enforcement and ending with the words 4. Election of new director. All required documents are attached (pages 132-214). [signature]

57
Vol. 23 By the record of 11 July 2005 of the seizure of documents at the premises of IMNS No. 28 for the South-Western Administrative District of Moscow, during which the legal file of Chelter LLC was removed (pages 2-5) By the legal file of Chelter LLC, removed in a seizure at IMNS No. 28 for the SouthWestern Administrative District of Moscow, as per the seizure record of 11 July 2005. Inspection of the documents established that for the period from 4 February 2003 to 17 February 2003 the general director and head accountant of Chelter LLC was Steganova A.Ye., from 17 February 2003 the general director of Chelter LLC was Klyuyev D.V. and the head accountant was Kudinova Ye.V. The participants [founders] of Chelter LLC from 4 February 2003 were Steganova A.Ye. and Khasanova O.Ye. (pages 6-263). Vol. 24 By a copy of plane tickets in the name of Voronkov Oleg No. 1 555 422 0740033 0 and Pechkin Aleksei No. 1 555 422 0740032 6 for flight No. 602 Moscow-Rostov for 30 December 2004 and No. 606 Rostov-Moscow for 30 December 2004 (page 48). By a copy of plane tickets in the name of Voronkov Oleg No. 1 555 422 0740033 3 and Pechkin Aleksei No. 1 555 422 0740032 2 for flight No. 602 Rostov-Moscow for 31 December 2004 (page 49). By a copy of an invoice of Intourist in Rostov-on-Don OJSC, according to which Voronkov Oleg Yurevich, d.o.b. 26 September 1970 stayed in room No. 506 from 30 December 2004 to 31 December 2004 and Pechkin Aleksei Aleksandrovich stayed in room No. 606 from 30 December 2004 to 31 December 2004. Payment for room No. 606 was made by [the resident of] room 506 (pages 43-47). By a memorandum on the outcome of operational measures: report and analysis of items and documents, according to which an officer of the Federal Security Service Directorate of Russia for Rostov Region received and analysed torn-off stubs of tickets from the airline company OJSC Aeroflot-Don and invoices of Intourist in Rostov-on-Don OJSC, from which it was established that Voronkov Oleg Yurevich, d.o.b. 26 September 1970, flew to Rostov-on-Don on 30 December 2004 on flight No. 607 of airline company OJSC Aeroflot-Don from Sheremetevo airport (Moscow), departing at 9.30. On the same day he booked into the Intourist in Rostov-on-Don hotel, into room No. 506, and when paying for his own room, Voronkov O.Yu. paid for one other room (No. 606) in the name of Pechkin Aleksei Aleksandrovich, d.o.b. 6 September 1964, born in Aktyubinskaya Region, holding passport Series 4604 No. 262423 of 16 January 2003. Comparative analysis of the torn-off stubs of tickets from the airline company OJSC Aeroflot-Don showed that the return tickets for flight No. 607 to Rostov-on-Don airport were purchased by Voronkov O.Yu. and Pechkin A.N. at the same time, at the same ticket sales company RUS AERO (Moscow). According to the purchased tickets, the return ticket should have been used on 30 December 2004, but the tickets were changed to 31 December 2004 for OJSC Aeroflot-Don Flight No. 602, departing at 12.55 (page 42). Vol. 25 By an audit report on Commercial Bank Universal Savings Bank LLC (pages 189199). Vol. 26 By the report of the search at the office of the president of Renaissance Capital CJSC, during which documents having bearing on the case were removed (pages 126-139) By a memorandum report (page 140). By an application (page 141) [signature]

58
By a memorandum (pages 142-146). By a ruling (pages 147-157). By registers (pages 158-176). By a plan (page 177). By a writ of execution (page 178). By a passport in the name of Ovechkin (page 178) By a power of attorney (pages 180-184). By the charter documents of Ariana [sic] Trading LTD (pages 185-211). Vol. 27 By expert opinion No. 12/1998 of 25 March 2005, according to the findings of which, in all probability, the same person is depicted in the photograph in the application on form No. 1P to issue (replace) a passport in the name of Voronkov Oleg Yurevich, d.o.b. 26 September 1970 and on the video-surveillance films 8: Cam[era] 8 of ING Bank (Eurasia) CJSC, of 12 January 2005 11:01:16 [and] of 12 January 2005 11:01:19, printed out during the inspection of items (documents) on 24 March 2005 from the presented black Verbatim diskettes (3.5 inches) without labels, with the number 2 on the front side and the serial number 4HO9G3 on the reverse side, obtained during a seizure on 27 January 2005 at the depositary of ING Bank (Eurasia) CJSC and also found in the form of files Nos. 127, 128 on this diskette (pages 3-11). By expert opinion No. 1624e of 31 March 2005, according to the findings of which the same person is depicted in the photograph in the application on form No. 1p to issue (replace) a passport in the name of Voronkov Oleg Yurevich, d.o.b. 26 September 1970 and on the digital videotape presented on diskette No. 2. One and the same person is probably depicted in the photograph on form No.1p in the application to issue (replace) a passport in the name of Voronkov Oleg Yurevich, d.o.b. 26 September 1970 and in the image on the video cassette SONY No. G44D013S, in the segment beginning from the start of the video recording at 0 hours 34 min. 44 sec., which shows a man with short dark hair and a bald patch, in a pale shirt, a red tie, a black coat, with a red package and a white package, crossing the road, up to the video frame with an image of a car with the registration number V 264 KhV 40 [B 264 XB 40] (vol. 27, pages 14-24). By expert opinion No. 1623e of 31 March 2005, according to the findings of which there are no indications of editing on the video cassette SONY No. G44D013S, in the segment beginning from the start of the video recording at 0 hours 34 min. 44 sec up to the video frame with an image of a car with the registration number V 264 KhV 40 [B 264 XB 40] (vol. 27, pages 27-31). By expert opinion No. 1809e of 6 April 2005, according to the findings of which the same person is probably depicted in the photograph in the application on form No.1p to issue (replace) a passport in the name of Pechkin Aleksei Aleksandrovich, d.o.b. 6 September 1964 and on the digitised video frame presented on diskette No.3a (vol. 27, pages 34-39). By expert opinion No. 12/3190 of 19 May 2005, according to the findings of which the note: Received 30 December 2004/Sorokin Viktor Aleksandrovich/ on the reverse side of an interim relief order handed down by Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court in Case No. A53445/2005-S3-40 of 30 December 2004 and the note Received 30 December 2004/Sorokin Viktor Aleksandrovich/ on the upper part of a letter to Colchecter Traiding [sic] Corp. and ING BANK (Eurasia) CJSC on behalf of Klepachev S.I. of 30 December 2004 were executed not by Sorokin V.A., but by another person. The signature in the line V.A. Sorokin in the letter addressed to the Chairman of the Board of CB Universal Savings Bank , Zhlobitskiy I.L. in the name of Sorokin V.A. on the [signature]

59
the issuance of a bank guarantee to Colchecter Group Trading Corp. for TerraSoft LLC; the signatures in the lines Principal and in the space On behalf of the PRINCIPAL in the Agreement to provide a bank guarantee No. BG-2/2004 of 28 December 2004 between CB Universal Savings Bank and Colchecter Group Trading Corp. international commercial company; the signature in the space On behalf of the PRINCIPAL in the certificate of acceptance of the bank guarantee under Agreement No. BG-2/2004 of 28 December 2004 to provide a bank guarantee and in the supplementary agreement to Agreement No. BG-2/2004 to provide a bank guarantee of 28 December 2004; the signature in the line V.A. Sorokin in the letter addressed to the Chairman of the Board of CB Universal Savings Bank , Zhlobitskiy I.L. in the name of Sorokin V.A. on the issuance of a bank guarantees [sic] to Colchecter Group Trading Corp. for SHIMLEN LLC; the signatures in the lines Principal and in the space On behalf of the PRINCIPAL in the Agreement to provide a bank guarantee No.BG3/2004 of 31 December 2004 between CB Universal Savings Bank and Colchecter Group Trading Corp. international commercial company; the signature in the space On behalf of the PRINCIPAL in the supplementary agreement to Agreement No.BG-3/2004 to provide a bank guarantee of 31 December 2004; the signature in the line Claiman[ts] Representative V.A. Sorokin in the letter to the first inter-district division of the court bailiffs service of the Federal Court Bailiffs Service Head Office for the Central Administrative District of Moscow in the name of Sorokin V.A. Ref. No. 28 of 31 December 2004; the signature placed near the note: received 30 December 2004/Sorokin Viktor Aleksandrovich./ on the reverse side [of] an interim relief order handed down by Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court in Case No. A53445/2005-S3-40 of 30 December 2004; the signature placed near the note: received 30 December 2004/Sorokin Viktor Aleksandrovich./ on the upper part of a letter to Colchecter Traiding [sic] Corp. and ING BANK (Eurasia) CJSC on behalf of Klepachev S.I. of 30 December 2004 were executed not by Sorokin V.A., but by another person (persons) (vol. 27, pages 42-46). By expert opinion No. 12/3189 of 20 May 2005, according to the findings of which the note: Received 30 December 2004 /Sorokin Viktor Aleksandrovich/ placed on the reverse side of an interim relief order handed down by Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court in Case No. A53-445/2005-S3-40 of 30 December 2004; the signature placed near the note: Received 30 December 2004/Sorokin Viktor Aleksandrovich/ situated on the upper part of a letter to Colchecter Traiding [sic] Corp. and ING BANK (Eurasia) CJSC on behalf of Klepachev S.I. of 30 December 2004 were executed not by Voronkov O.Yu., but by another person. It was not thought possible to decide the question who, Voronkov O.Yu. or another person, executed the signature placed near the note: Received 30 December 2004 /Sorokin Viktor Aleksandrovich/ placed on the reverse side of an interim relief order handed down by Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court in Case No. A53-445/2005-S3-40 of 30 December 2004; the signature placed near the note: Received 30 December 2004/Sorokin Viktor Aleksandrovich/ placed on the upper part of a letter to Colchecter Traiding [sic] Corp. and ING BANK (Eurasia) CJSC on behalf of Klepachev S.I. of 30 December 2004, for the reasons indicated in the analytical section of the experts opinion (vol. 27, pages 49-51). By expert opinion No. 12/3188 of 2 June 2005, according to the findings of which the signature in the lines Director of Colchecter Group Traiding [sic] Corp. in the statement of claim seeking enforcement of specific performance of an obligation in Irkutsk Region Arbitrazh Court on behalf of the director of Colchecter Group Trading Corp., R. Carpenter No.1964 of 13 January 2004; in the application for a provisional remedy in Irkutsk Region Arbitrazh Court on behalf of the director of Colchecter Group Trading Corp., R. Carpenter; in the statement of claim seeking enforcement of specific performance of an obligation in Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court on behalf of the director of Colchecter Group Trading Corp., R. Carpenter Ref. No. A53-445/2005-S3-40 of 29 December 2004; the signature in the [signature]

60
line General Director of Colchecter Group Traiding [sic] Corp. in the application for a provisional remedy in Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court on behalf of the director of Colchecter Group Trading Corp., R. Carpenter; the signature depicted in the space Buyer:/Roger Carpenter/ on the third sheet of the copy of the securities sale and purchase agreement of 22 November 2004 between Terr[a]Soft LLC and the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp.; the signature depicted in the space Buyer:/Roger Carpenter/ on the third sheet and the signatures placed near imprints of the round seal: Colchecter Group Traiding [sic] Corp. in the lower sections of each sheet of the copy of the securities sale and purchase agreement of 7 December 2004 between Shimlen LLC and the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp.; the signature in the line Roger Carpenter, Company Director in power of attorney No.K-1/8 of 7 December 2004 on behalf of the director of the company Colchecter Group Traiding [sic] Corp., R. Carpenter in the name of Sorokin V.A. were not executed by Roger Carpenter, but by another person (persons) copying his original signature (vol. 27, pages 54-57). By expert opinion No. 12/2668 of 18 April 2005, according to the findings of which the note: Received 30 December 2004 /Sorokin Viktor Aleksandrovich./ placed on the reverse side of an interim relief order handed down by Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court in Case No. A53-445/2005-S3-40 of 30 December 2004; the signature placed near the note: Received. 30 December 2004/Sorokin Viktor Aleksandrovich/ situated on the upper part of a letter to Colchecter Traiding [sic] Corp. and ING BANK (Eurasia) CJSC on behalf of Klepachev S.I. of 30 December 2004 were executed by Pechkin A.N.. It was not thought possible to decide the question who, Pechkin A.N. or another person, executed the signature placed near the note: Received 30 December 2004 /Sorokin Viktor Aleksandrovich./ placed on the reverse side of the interim relief order handed down by Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court in Case No. A53-445/2005-S3-40 of 30 December 2004; the signature placed near the note: Received. 30 December 2004/Sorokin Viktor Aleksandrovich/ placed on the upper part of the letter to Colchecter Traiding [sic] Corp. and ING BANK (Eurasia) CJSC on behalf of Klepachev S.I. of 30 December 2004, for the reasons indicated in the analytical section of the experts opinion (vol. 27, pages 60-64). By expert opinion No. 6414e of 24 October 2005, according to the findings of which one and the same person is probably depicted in the photograph on form No.1p of the application to issue (replace) a passport in the name of Pechkin Aleksei Aleksandrovich, d.o.b. 6 September 1964, and on the copy of a passport in the name of Sorokin Viktor Aleksandrovich, date of birth 29 October 1965, series 68 01 No. 303305, issued by Tambov ROVD [Regional Department of Internal Affairs], Tambov Region on 2 October 2001 (vol. 27, pages 82-87). By expert opinion No. un-numbered [sic] of 24 May 2005, the findings of which establish the fact of the impropriety of the decision by the Universal Savings Bank LLC credit committee to issue two bank guarantees, and as a consequence, the impropriety of the issuance of these guarantees by the chairman of the board of Universal Savings Bank LLC, Zhlobitskiy I.L. and the head accountant of the bank, Steganova A.Ye. (vol. 27, pages 90-97). Economic opinion No. 44 of 11 May 2005, according to the findings of which the loss incurred by Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC for February-March 2005 amounted to RUR 118,720.80 and the presumed loss for the entire period of effect of contract No. 17/01/05-47 of 17 January 2005 (from 17 January 2005 to 31 January 2006) amounted to RUR 729,496.50 (vol. 27, pages 105-110). Having evaluated and analysed each item of evidence from the standpoint of relevance and admissibility, and the body of all evidence gathered on the case, the [signature]

61
court reaches the conclusion that it is sufficient to establish the guilt of the defendants in the commission of these acts. The court evaluates the defendants not guilty pleas as a position of the defence chosen for the purpose of evading liability for the act committed, since their guilt has been established by the evidence gathered in the case and analysed in the verdict. Klyuyevs arguments that he merely asked Zhlobitskiy to issue a bank guarantee, while being unaware of its purpose, have not found support in the course of the court hearing and are refuted by the factual circumstances of the case, in accordance with which all the actions established by the court were organised by Kluyev and committed by the defendants with the aid of Albayev. However, the court takes into account that in his testimony given during the preliminary hearing, Klyuyev admitted the fact that he was involved in organising the seizure of said property and testified that he did this at the request of a person, a case against whom has been brought in a separate proceeding, for certain remuneration. The court bases its verdict on this testimony in the respect established by the court, since the court finds unconvincing the explanations given by Klyuyev during the court hearing of the reasons for giving this testimony. The arguments of Zhlobitskiy and Steganova that they acted properly, lawfully and justifiably, are refuted by the findings of the economic legal expert according to which, the decisions to issue said bank guarantees did not comply with the requirements of internal bank regulations, in respect of the procedural and substantive aspects set forth in the Opinion, [and] the agreements on the issuance of said bank guarantees and the guarantees themselves were signed improperly by the chairman of the board and the head accountant. The procedure for issuance of these bank guarantees was not observed and is contrary to commercial practice and customary business relations in the banking system of the Russian Federation (vol. 27, pages 90-97). The court cannot take into consideration the arguments of counsels for the defence that this opinion was obtained in violation of the law and should therefore be declared inadmissible evidence, for the following reasons: the assertions of counsels for the defence, that the experts were not cautioned regarding their criminal liability for knowingly giving a false opinion, is contradicted by the evidence in the case, according to which, as indicated in volume 27, page 92, the rights and obligations provided by Articles 199 and 57 RF Code of Criminal Procedure were explained to Morshnev and Petrenko and they were cautioned regarding liability for knowingly giving a false opinion under Article 307 RF Code of Criminal Procedure. Contrary to the assertions of counsels for the defence that the persons conducting the expert examination do not have higher qualifications, it follows from the document that this opinion was given by persons who have the relevant knowledge and possess sufficient competence to resolve these issues. Thus, it follows from the opinion that the expert examination was made by accredited auditors acting as experts, and documents confirming their authority have been cited. There is no requirement in this case to provide information on higher qualifications, since the position of auditor itself is a clear indication that [the expert] has higher qualifications. Pechkins testimony that he did not have intent to commit a crime is refuted by the factual circumstances of the case, according to which he presented a passport in another name and obtained court documents under the name of Sorokin, [signature]

62
and participated in the seizure of these shares, which clearly indicates his awareness and confirms his direct involvement within the framework of the role assigned to him in the commission of this crime. The court does not trust the testimony of Voronkov that in accordance with an agreement reached previously, he merely provided legal services to Pechkin, since, as established by the court and also confirmed by Voronkov himself, the latter was aware that Pechkin had forged documents and facilitated their use by all possible means, thereby aiding the furtherance of a common criminal purpose. The court cannot concur with the lawyers arguments that the findings of the economic opinion are presumptive in character and therefore cannot form the basis of the verdict, since affirmative findings are made in this Opinion that pecuniary injury was caused to Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC by the seizure of shares, which for February [and] March 2005 amounted to RUR 118,720.80, therefore, for the entire period of validity of the contract, the terms of which were breached, the losses sustained thereby from 17 January 2005 to 31 January 2006 amounted to RUR 729,496 [and] 50 kopeks. Given that the experts indicated the presumed damage only because of its remoteness in time, the court considers it necessary to base its verdict on this opinion, believing that actual damage was sustained by the seizure of the shares on the grounds indicated in this economic opinion, which was subsequently paid for by the defendant Klyuyev, for which reason the victims state that they have incurred no actual loss. Counsel refers to the character of this crime [sic] as engineered, on the grounds that: the victims statement was made at the Main Internal Affairs Department of Moscow on 17 January 2005 without being recorded in the Crime Log or Incident Log and was signed over for verification to several (three) officials on the same day, i.e. 17 January 2005; a report was written by the investigating officer Golyshev A.V., that there were indicia of elements of a crime in the actions of the persons specified in the statement, and this was approved on the same day 17 January 2005 by his superiors, pursuant to which an order to initiate criminal proceedings was issued on 19 January 2005. [The above assertions] constitute presumptions by counsel for the defence, since the law contains no prohibition against any verifications of a committed crime within a period of one day and the absence of a record in the crime report logbooks is not evidence that this statement is false and the facts set forth in it have been confirmed in the course of the preliminary and judicial investigations. On the basis of the foregoing, the court finds the defendants guilty of the commission of the criminal acts established by the court; however, having analysed and evaluated the body of all evidence gathered in the case, the court finds that the defendants actions have been qualified wrongly by the preliminary investigation agencies, since the charge against the defendants of attempted fraud, that is, deliberate acts for the immediate purpose of embezzlement of anothers property by means of deception and abuse of trust, committed by an organised group on an especially large scale, not carried through to completion through circumstances beyond their control, has not been confirmed during the court hearing, on the following grounds. [signature]

63
In accordance with the law, the objective aspect of fraud is expressed in the embezzlement of anothers property or in the appropriation of the right to anothers property, while the subjective aspect of fraud consists in direct [express] intent and mercenary purpose. In this case these circumstances have not been established. While the indictment indicates that Klyuyev conspired to organise the seizure of the shares and subsequent embezzlement by means of fraud, the investigation has not adduced any evidence showing that the defendants acted with intent to embezzle these shares. In the description of the offenders actions in the charge sheet, the investigation does not indicate exactly what actions were undertaken by the accused for the purposes of implementing a plan to embezzle the property of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC. The indictment specifies that all the criminal acts were performed for one purpose to impose seizure on the shares, and merely summarising the offenders actions, the investigating officers write that the crime, the purpose of which was the embezzlement of nominal uncertified shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC by fraudulent means, was not carried through to completion for reasons beyond the control of the offenders. Thus, there is no indication in the indictment of how the seized shares could have been transferred to the ownership of Klyuyev, Zhlobitskiy, Steganova, Voronkov and Pechkin, or by what means they could have passed into their ownership as a consequence of the actions committed by them, that is, the method of commission of the fraud is not described, nor is the objective aspect of the crime, envisaged by Article 159 RF Criminal Code. Moreover, no evidence is adduced by the investigation that all the defendants acted with intent to embezzle this property. Neither in the course of the preliminary investigation, nor in the judicial investigation, has any of the guilty parties ever said that they acted with intent to embezzle this property. No other objective evidence of this circumstance of any kind has been obtained by the investigation and submitted to the court. The court cannot base its verdict on these findings of the investigation, since to recognise the existence of elements of a crime in the actions of offenders, under Russian law it is mandatory to establish the offenders intent to commit the specific criminal act.

The state prosecutors reference to a document cited by him as evidence, as a plan (vol. 26, page 177) does not, in the opinion of the court, constitute proof that the defendants are guilty of the commission of fraud and had intent to embezzle the property of Mikhailovskiy GOK. These findings are based on the following: the aforesaid document consists of printed text, with no signature, no details of any kind and no indication of the addressee and the person who excuted it. The investigation has not established by whom, under what conditions and on what device this document was prepared, none of the defendants has ever admitted to its authorship and none of the witnesses has mentioned this document.

[signature]

64
The investigating officer Prokhorov D.A. testified at the court hearing that citizen Kiselev explained during the search, at which he was present, that he did not know the origin of this document and to whom it belonged, he does not know how it appeared in his office. No evidence of any kind confirming the presumptions of the investigator and the prosecutor that this document was handed by Klyuyev to Kiselev for the purposes of implementation of a plan to embezzle shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK has been obtained by the investigation and submitted to the court. Thus, given that in accordance with the norms of criminal procedural law, the court cannot make its findings on the basis of presumptions, the court is persuaded that the state prosecutors reference to this document as evidence of the existence of elements of a crime foreseen by Article 159 RF Criminal Code in the defendants actions is unfounded. In addition to the lack of evidence in the case of the defendants criminal intent to commit fraud, the factual circumstances themselves do not give the court grounds to state that Klyuyev, Zhlobitskiy, Steganova, Voronkov and Pechkin acted for the purpose of fraud, on the following grounds: in itself, the fact of the seizure of these shares which occurred in no way constitutes evidence that the seized shares would automatically have transferred to the ownership of the companies that filed an action to impose seizure on them, or of the persons involved in this act; the fact of the issuance of a bank guarantee, cited by the investigation in substantiation of the fraudulent actions, does not show that it was issued for the purpose of the embezzlement of shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, since: the instrument of a bank guarantee is regulated by the provisions of RF Civil Code, Part 1 (6) (23) and the Standardized Rules on Contractual Guarantees (1978 edition, MTP publication No. 325), and also by the relevant bylaws of the Russian Federation Central Bank. A bank guarantee is a means of securing performance of obligations. In accordance with Article 368 RF Civil Code, under a bank guarantee, the bank (guarantor), at the request of another party (the principal), provides a written obligation to pay a sum of money to the principals creditor (the beneficiary), in accordance with the terms of the obligation given by the guarantor, upon presentation by the beneficiary of a written demand for its payment. A bank guarantee ensures due performance by the principal of its obligation to the beneficiary (the principal obligation). The principal pays the guarantor remuneration for the issuance of the bank guarantee. Under civil law, the obligation of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC to TerraSoft LLC or Shimlen LLC provided by the bank guarantee does not depend, in the relations between them, on the principal obligation, to secure performance of which it was issued, even if the guarantee contains reference to this obligation. A bank guarantee enters into force from its date of issue, unless provided otherwise by the guarantee. In accordance with Article 94 RF Code of Arbitrazh Procedure, a bank guarantee may be issued in order to obtain interim relief in an arbitrazh court, in accordance with Article 93(4) RF Code of Arbitrazh Procedure, a claim cannot be denied if a person petitioning for interim relief has applied for a counter injunction. In accordance with the documents in the case file, removed from CB Universal Savings Bank LLC, a representative of the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp., Sorokin V.A., acting by power of attorney of 7 December 2004, contacted the Chairman of the Board of Colchecter Group Trading Corp. in writing, with a request

[signature]

65
to consider providing a bank guarantee for the beneficiary TerraSoft LLC, for the amount of RUR 3,140,384 for a term of six months. On 28 December 2004, the Credit Committee, comprising three people: Zhlobitskiy, Chairman of the Board of the bank; Bogdanov, Deputy Chairman of the Board of the bank and a member of the credit committee; and Steganova A.Ye., Head Accountant of the bank and a member of the credit committee, took a decision to provide a bank guarantee to the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp. For the issuance of the bank guarantee, CB USB LLC was to pay remuneration in the amount of 5.5% of the sum of the guarantee within 30 working days from the time of issuance of the guarantee (vol. 25, pages 192-193). According to the review report of the Russian Federation Central Bank, Moscow Territorial Head Office, Department No. 2, of 4 August 2005, Reg. No. ATI 52-23/549 (vol. 25, pages 189-199), during a review of the propriety of the issuance of bank guarantees by CB USB LLC, the Russian Federation Central Bank committee did not draw the conclusion that in issuing guarantees to the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp. payable to TerraSoft LLC and Shimlen LLC, the bank undertook obligations to guarantee for Colchecter Group Trading Corp. any transactions with shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC and there are no references to transactions with shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC in any of the documents contained in the file on the issuance of the bank guarantees, in the wording of the supplementary agreements to these agreements and so forth. The defendants lack of intent to defraud and the presumptive character of the investigations findings are supported by the following: under Article 2 of the Federal Law On joint-stock companies of 26 December 1995 No. 208-FL (edition of 29 December 2004) a share is a security certifying the shareholders mandatory rights in relation to the company. Under Article 2 of the Federal Law On the securities market, a share is security issue securing the holders rights to receive part of the profit of a joint-stock company in the form of dividends, to participate in the management of the joint-stock company and rights in part of the property remaining after its liquidation. Property rights in a share, as in a security, arise as a result of its acquisition through an offering, under civil law agreements, by inheritance or pursuant to a court decision. Under the Federal Law On joint-stock companies of 26 December 1995 No. 208FL and the Resolutions of the Federal Commercial Central Bank of the Russian Federation of 2 Jul[y] [1]997 (edition of 20 April 1998) On approval of the statute on the keeping of a register of holders of nominal securities, a joint-stock company of which the charter capital consists of nominal uncertified shares is obliged to ensure proper keeping of a register of company shareholders, either independently, or by entrusting this work to a person who is entitled to engage in this type of worka registrar. The regulations on the keeping of a register of holders of nominal securities are binding on the registrars of professional participants in the securities market and on joint-stock companies independently ensuring the keeping of a register of holders of nominal securities. A registrar is a professional participant in the securities market, engaging in the activity of keeping a register of holders of nominal securities, both exclusive, on the basis of an agreement with the issuer, and under licence to engage in this type of work. A shareholders register is a body of data recorded on a paper medium and (or) using an electronic database, which ensures [signature]

66
identification of the registered persons, certifies rights to the securities registered in the personal accounts of the registered persons, and also permits them to receive and send information to registered persons (Article 2 of the Statute). A registered person is a natural person or a legal entity, information on which is entered in the register. Registered persons are: the holderthe person to whom the securities belong by title or other proprietary right; the nominal holderthe professional participant in the securities market, who is the holder of the securities on their own behalf, but in the interests of another person, while not being the owner of these securities; the asset managerthe legal entity or individual entrepreneur (professional participant in the securities market), who engages in asset management of the securities transferred to his possession for a certain period and belonging to another person, in the interests of this person or third parties specified by this person; the pledgeholder, the creditor in respect of the obligation secured by the pledge, in whose name the pledge of the securities is drawn up. All shares are registered in the personal account of the registered person, which is accessible to the owner, the nominal holder, and the pledgeholder or asset manager. Under Article 29 of the Federal Law On the securities market, proof of ownership of uncertified securities is a record in the registera statement from the shareholders register. The holder of a company shareholders register is obliged at demand of the shareholder or nominal holder of the shares to confirm its rights in the shares by issuance a statement from the company shareholders register, which is not a security. From the evidence presented by the prosecution, the court has established that TerraSoft LLC and Shimlen LLC have never been and are not shareholders of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC. Therefore, they had no right to sell shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK LLC [sic] to the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp. The agreements concluded between these societies and the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp. are void transactions, in view of the fact that the product itself was lacking as an object of the transaction. The court has established that pursuant to the Ruling of Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court, seizure was imposed on shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC. Under Article 91(1)(2) RF Code of Arbitrazh Procedure, in respect of a claimants petition a court may grant interim relief in the form of a prohibition against the respondent and other persons performing certain actions relating to the subject of the dispute. Seizure of the shares of a company as a provisional remedy means a prohibition against performing any actions in respect of these shares, including transactions with them, filing a claim for them and so forth. However, the actual owner is not deprived of the ability to use this property at their own discretion. This rule is confirmed by the norms of the operative legislation, in particular by the provisions of RF Government Resolution No. 934 of 12 August 1998 On approval of the Procedure for seizure of securities, pursuant to which seizure of securities does not prevent the performance of actions relating to their redemption, payment of income from them, their conversion or exchange, i.e. seizure of securities does not hinder the ability to exercise other rights arising from possession of the shares. According to the files of the criminal case, the respondents in the claim brought by the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp. in the Arbitrazh courts of Rostov Region and Irkutsk Region were both TerraSoft LLC and Shimlen LLC, and the specialist depositary ING Bank Eurasia (CJSC), which keeps a register of the shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC held on deposit. Pursuant to the Federal Law On enforcement proceedings, para. 2 of RF Government Resolution

[signature]

67
No. 934 of 12 August 1998 On approval of the procedure for seizure of securities, seizure of uncertified securities is imposed at the place of registration of the rights of the holders of these securities, in this case at the place of registration of ING Bank Eurasia (CJSC). Seizure is imposed on shares only pursuant to a bailiffs document [sic]. This means that a court ruling to apply seizure of shares as a provisional remedy and a writ of execution cannot be forwarded for execution to the joint-stock company, the holder of its register or to the depositary, but is served by a court bailiff. As a litigant participating in the court hearing, ING Bank Eurasia (CJSC) was able to exercise and has exercised the right to appeal against the ruling of the courts to impose seizure, by submitting evidence confirming that TerraSoft LLC and Shimlen LLC have no title to the shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC[;] the order for seizure of the shares was rescinded. Thus, the seizure of the shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC could not entail the transfer of title to these shares to the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp. Thus, from the factual circumstances of the case established by the court, it is impossible to draw the conclusion that the defendants acted for the purpose of embezzlement of these shares. These findings of the court are also supported by the testimony of the victim Kryuchkov that it was impossible to steal these shares, as they were held in the depositary of a Russian commercial bank as a pledge for credit and they did not leave the ownership of the holders of these shares, and by the witness testimony of Pavlov, that there was discussion only of seizure of the shares [and] no-one spoke of embezzlement of these shares. Thus, given that no evidence has been obtained by the investigation and submitted to the court that the defendants had intent to commit fraudulent actions and the factual circumstances of this case also do not show this, and taking into consideration that the court cannot base its findings on the presumptions of the investigation, the court concludes that the actions of the accused have been improperly qualified by the investigating agencies under Articles 30(3), 159(4) RF Criminal Code. The investigations findings that this crime was committed by an organised group have also not been confirmed in the course of the court hearing. In accordance with the law, an organised group is characterised as a stable group of persons, who have associated previously for the commission of one or several crimes. The chief attribute of an organised group is its persistent nature. Persistence may be shown by the long period of time for which it has existed; usually, by the large number of crimes committed, [possession of] technical equipment and special preparations by the participants, a special procedure for entry into the criminal group, subordination to group discipline, the stability of its membership and organisational structures, the cohesion of its members, the permanent character of the forms and methods of criminal activity and the narrow criminal specialisation of the participants. These circumstances are absent in this case. As follows from the established factual circumstances of the case, the criminal activity of the defendants began in December 2004 and was ended on 12 January 2005, that is, it was developing within a short period of time.

[signature]

68
The court has established that one crime was committed which did not require any special technical equipment or special preparation by its participants. Not all the defendants were acquainted with each other. Thus, Klyuyev knew Steganova, Zhlobitskiy and Voronkov, whereas Steganova and Zhlobitskiy saw Voronkov and Pechkin for the first time during the investigation. Voronkov knew Zhlobitskiy and he met Pechkin in the course of the commission of the crime, but Pechkin was not acquainted with anyone except Voronkov, whom he met during the trip to Rostov. No other information enabling the court to qualify the commission of the crime as an indication of an organised group of persons has been obtained by the investigation and submitted by the prosecution; therefore the court finds that the evaluation presented by the investigation is unfounded. In the court hearing, there has been no confirmation of the circumstances set forth in the indictment, that Albayev, in December 2004, in a place not established by the investigation, manufactured a forged passport series 6801 No. 303305 in the name of Sorokin Viktor Aleksandrovich, by gluing into it a photograph of his acquaintance Pechkin A.N. in his possession, prepared a forged power of attorney of 24 December 2004 in the name of Sorokin V.A., allegedly issued by the director of the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp., Roger Carpenter for representation of the companys interests in the courts, prepared two forged share sale and purchase agreements of 22 November 2004, allegedly concluded between TerraSoft LLC (Rostov-on-Don), represented by the general director Aleksanov A.G. and the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp. (Bahama islands), represented by R. Carpenter, and also between Shimlen LLC (Bratsk, Irkutsk region) represented by the general director Senkin S.I. and the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp. (Bahama islands), represented by the director R. Carpenter. Under the terms of these agreements, TerraSoft LLC and Shimlen LLC, with no legal grounds for this and not being stockholders of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC and owners of shares in this enterprise, were allegedly transferring 6,039,200 ordinary nominal uncertified shares of Colchecter Group Trading Corp. with a nominal value of RUR 0.25 each, at a price of 0.54 per share to the ownership of the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp. However, the organisation of the issuance of these bank guarantees, the presentation of the required documents to the bank by an unidentified person and subsequent receipt of the bank guarantees by an unidentified person was controlled by Albayev S.A., acting on the instruction given him previously by Klyuyev D.V. Thereafter, Albayev S.A., continuing to implement a common criminal plan of the members of an organised group and acting in accordance with the criminal allocation of roles, in a place not established by the investigation, organised the filing, on 29 December 2004, by an unidentified person at Rostov Region Arbitrazh Court (8a ul. Stanislavskogo, Rostov-onDon), on behalf of the firm Colchecter Group Trading Corp., of a false statement of claim prepared by him (Albayev) earlier in circumstances not established, on behalf of the director of the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp., R. Carpenter For enforcement of the specific performance of obligations, and also a false application for interim relief on behalf of R. Carpenter. In these applications, the claimant (Colchecter Group Trading Corp.) petitioned the court to order the respondent (TerraSoft LLC) to perform obligations to transfer to the claimant 6,039,200 ordinary nominal uncertified shares of Colchecter Group Trading Corp., to order the nominal holder of the shareholders register (ING Bank Eurasia CJSC) to enter the relevant amendments in the depositary registration system and also to impose seizure on these shares. Among the documents submitted to the court by an unidentified [signature]

69
person, there was also a forged share sale and purchase agreement of 22 November 2004 between TerraSoft LLC and the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp., prepared previously by Albayev and also a bank guarantee of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC of 28 December 2004 for the amount of RUR 3,140,384 Continuing to implement a common criminal plan of the members of an organised group and acting in accordance with the criminal allocation of roles, Albayev S.A., in a place not established by the investigation, organised the filing on 13 January 2005 by an unidentified person at Irkutsk Region Arbitrazh Court (70 b-r Gagarina, Irkutsk) on behalf of the firm Colchecter Group Trading Corp. of a false statement of claim, prepared by him (Albayev) earlier in circumstances not established, on behalf of the director of the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp., R. Carpenter For enforcement of the specific performance of obligations, and also a false application for interim relief on behalf of R. Carpenter. In these applications, the claimant (Colchecter Group Trading Corp.) petitioned the court to order the respondent (Shimlen LLC) to perform obligations to transfer to the claimant 6,039,200 ordinary nominal uncertified shares of Colchecter Group Trading Corp., to order the nominal holder of the shareholders register (ING Bank Eurasia CJSC) to enter the relevant amendments in the depositary registration system and also to impose seizure on these shares. Among the documents submitted to the court by an unidentified person there was also a forged share sale and purchase agreement of 22 November 2004 between Shimlen LLC and the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp., prepared previously by Albayev and also a bank guarantee of CB Universal Savings Bank LLC of 31 December 2004 for the amount of RUR 3,126,168. On the basis of the aforesaid forged documents, on 14 January 2005 a judge of Irkutsk Region Arbitrazh Court, Kolominova N.Yu. handed down a ruling in Case No. A191964/05-6 to grant interim relief, pursuant to which the court imposed seizure on 6,039,200 ordinary nominal uncertified shares of Colchecter Group Trading Corp. and issued a corresponding writ of execution No. 309 of 14 January 2005. Having examined the case file, the court concludes that these findings of the investigation are unfounded and are not substantiated by the evidence gathered in the case. When questioned during the investigation only as a witness, Albayev never admitted committing the acts imputed to him and there is no other evidence of Albayevs complicity in these actions. These circumstances are not confirmed either by the witness testimony, or by the written evidence, and are based solely on the investigations presumptions, on which, in accordance with the law, the court cannot base its verdict. Furthermore, the court finds the investigations order to terminate the criminal case in respect of the suspect Albayev unlawful and improper on the following grounds: under Article 24(1)(4) RF Code of Criminal Procedure, a criminal case cannot be initiated and criminal proceedings must be terminated, among other reasons, due to the death of a suspect or accused person. As established by Article 46 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, a suspect is considered to be a person in respect of whom a criminal case is opened, or who is detained under Articles 91, 92 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, or to whom a restraint measure is applied until a charge is brought under Article 100 RF Code of Criminal Procedure.

[signature]

70
Albayev did not belong to any of these categories of persons. This criminal case was opened based on the fact of the commission of a crime; Albayev was not detained as a suspect, no restraint measure was applied to him, he was questioned only as a witness on 22 February 2005 (vol. 1, pages 75-80), when he gave no testimony whatsoever regarding criminal acts established already after his death, which according to the investigation were committed by him and which are set forth in the indictment. According to his death certificate, Albayev died on 11 April 2005 (vol. 1, page 102), but the order to terminate the criminal prosecution given by the investigating officer on 19 October 2005, in which Albayev is indicated as a suspect, is unlawful, since he (Albayev), as noted above, never had this status. In view of the above, the court cannot take into consideration the circumstances of the perpetration of criminal acts by Albayev set forth in this order [and] established by the investigation, which were also set forth in the charges against the defendants and in the prosecutions case, therefore, in view of the above and the fact that these actions are not supported by any evidence, the court finds that the description of the criminal activity of Albayev must be excluded from the scope of the indictment in the respects determined by the court and the court cannot base the indictment of the other parties on the circumstances established by the investigation that are specified in it. The court concludes that the scope of the indictment must exclude reference to the following acts: On 13 January 2005 Pechkin A.N., by prior agreement with Albayev, acting together with Voronkov O.Yu., making himself out to be the representative of the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp., Sorokin V.A., using a forged passport in the name of Sorokin V.A. handed over to him earlier by Albayev S.A. with his (Pechkins) photograph glued into it and a forged power of attorney in the name of Sorokin V.A., allegedly issued by the director of the company Colchecter Group Trading Corp., R. Carpenter for representation of the companys interests in the courts, arrived together with Voronkov O.Yu. in Irkutsk. On 14 January 2005, having arrived at the building of Irkutsk Region Arbitrazh Court and presented the forged passport and a power of attorney in the name of Sorokin V.A., Pechkin A.N. obtained at Irkutsk Region Arbitrazh Court the aforesaid court ruling of 14 January 2005 to impose seizure on shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC and a corresponding writ of execution. On 31 January 2005 a ruling of Irkutsk Region Arbitrazh Court reversed the ruling of 14 January 2005 to grant interim relief in the form of imposing seizure on shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, in connection with the filing of a similar petition in Irkutsk Region Arbitrazh Court by CJSC ING Bank (Eurasia) to rescind the order for interim relief. The court cannot base its verdict on these circumstances, since the investigation has not established, there is no indication in the indictment and no evidence has been adduced of the amount of the object of the crimethe property which the defendants planned to embezzle, therefore, given that the defendants actions were encompassed by a common plan, taking into consideration that establishing the value of the property which the offenders planned to embezzle is a mandatory indication of the element of crime under Article 159 RF Criminal Code, and taking into consideration that

[signature]

71
the court has not been able, at its own initiative, to establish the amount of the presumed damage, as it is not entitled to broaden the scope of the indictment, the court finds that these circumstances must be excluded from the indictment. Moreover, the court takes into account that seizure of the shares pursuant to the Irkutsk court decision was not imposed; that is, in actual fact, preparation for a crime was committed, and also takes into account the evaluation of this, established by the court, as an offence of medium gravity, which is not criminally punishable. On the basis of the above, bearing in mind that the crime committed contains no indicia of embezzlement, no transfer of property from the owners possession to the possession of the offenders occurred and could not have occurred and no indicia of the commission of a crime by an organised group of persons have been confirmed in the court hearing, the court finds that the actions of the offenders should be qualified as follows: of Klyuyev D.V., under Articles 33(3), 165(2) RF Criminal Code, as he is guilty of organising to cause pecuniary damage to the property owner by means of deception, in the absence of indicia of large-scale embezzlement, by a group of persons by prior collusion; of Zhlobitskiy I.L. and Steganova A.Ye., under Articles 33(5), 165(2) RF Criminal Code, as they are guilty of aiding and abetting the causing of pecuniary damage to the property owner through deception, in the absence of indicia of large-scale embezzlement, by a group of persons by prior collusion. of Voronkov O.Yu., Pechkin A.N. under Article 165(2) RF Criminal Code, as they are guilty of aiding and abetting the causing of pecuniary damage to the property owner through deception, in the absence of indicia of large-scale embezzlement, by a group of persons by prior collusion. of Voronkov O.Yu. under Articles 33(5), 327(3) RF Criminal Code, as he is guilty of aiding and abetting the use of a document known to be forged. of Pechkin A.N. under Articles 327(5) RF Criminal Code, as he is guilty of using a document known to be forged. The court deems proven the fact that the defendants criminal actions, specifically: seizure of the shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC caused damage to the owner through lost profit, since Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC did not receive income which should have increased its wealth, as it sustained losses on four contracts concluded on 17 January 2005 Nos. 17/01/05-47, 17/01/05-48, 17/01/05-49, 17/01/05-50 with the firm TORBEG CON[S]ULTANTS LIMITED for supplies of iron ore raw materials for export, due to a change in the payment time schedule, which resulted in a loss of turnover on each monthly delivery of raw materials, and accordingly, caused financial losses which the enterprise was forced to cover at the cost of borrowed funds. The court bases its determination of the amount of damage on the Economic opinion on the fact and amount of damage caused to Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC as a result of unlawfully imposing seizure on the shares of this enterprise (vol. 27, pages 105-110),

[signature]

72
considering it to be evidence as another document in which calculations are made that as a result of imposing seizure on the shares of Mikhailovskiy GOK OJSC, that is, as a result of the commission of this crime, this enterprise sustained damage, a detailed calculation of which is given in said document and the sum of which amounts to RUR 729,495.50. Given that the amount of damage is greater than the amount of large-scale damage, which is set by the legislator at RUR 250,000, the court declares the amount of damage caused to be large-scale. Despite the fact that the investigation does not bring a charge of causing said damage, the court finds it possible to qualify the defendants actions on this count. In so doing it does not go beyond the scope of the indictment, for the following reasons: the defendants criminal actions that have been established by the investigation and by the court are identical; the court has changed only the qualification of their actions, in view of the failure to prove the qualification submitted [by the prosecution]. The fact of seizure has been established by the investigation, the investigation has obtained and submitted to the court an economic opinion on the fact of the causation of damage by these actions, and there was no requirement to indicate this damage in qualifying the actions of the offenders as attempted fraud, since the damage caused by the crime did not affect the qualification in this instance. Given that the sum of the damage in the amount of RUR 729,496.50 established by the court and the investigation does not broaden the scope of the indictment, that the crimes foreseen by Articles 159 and 165 RF Criminal Code relate to the same chapter of the criminal statuteto the category of crimes against property, that is, they have the same generic type of objectproperty relations, the court sees no violations of the law in qualifying the defendants actions under Articles 33(5), 165(2) RF Criminal Code. The court qualifies the actions of Klyuyev as the organiser of this crime, since the court has established his role as the person who organised this crime by selecting accomplices and giving them certain instructions for its execution. The court finds proven the fact that Klyuyev committed this crime by prior collusion with a person, a case against whom has been brought in a separate proceeding, based on Klyuyevs testimony given during the preliminary investigation. The court qualifies the actions of Zhlobitskiy and Steganova under Articles 33(5), 165(2) RF Criminal Code, since they aided and abetted the offence, namely, by means of the issuance of the bank guarantee they facilitated the commission of this crime, thereby creating one of the most important conditions for its furtherance. The court qualifies the actions of Voronkov and Pechkin as the actions of actual perpetrators, since they directly executed the objective aspect of this crime, specifically: they obtained documents at the court to impose seizure on the shares [and] presented these documents to the court bailiff, and Pechkin filed the application to impose seizure on the shares. Since the court recognises the existence of two accomplices (Voronkov and Pechkin) in the commission of this crime, their actions are qualified as committed by prior collusion by a group of persons.

[signature]

73
The court considers the use by Pechkin of a document known to be forged to be proven, based on the confession statement of Pechkin himself in this respect, that he was aware of the need to use a forged passport, gave his consent to this and used the passport when obtaining the documents at the Rostov court and writing the application for seizure. The existence of aiding and abetting in Voronkovs actions is shown by Voronkovs awareness that he was providing legal assistance to a person acting on the basis of a forged passport. In accordance with Article 60 RF Criminal Code, in handing down the sentence the court takes into consideration the character and degree of the danger to society arising from the act, and the personal details of the guilty parties.

Klyuyev D.V. has no previous convictions (vol. 26, pages 104-105), is not registered at a drug clinic or psychoneurological clinic, has no complaints against him at his place of residence and has state awards for military service in Afghanistan from 1986-1988, specifically, he was awarded a medal For selfless military service in the Krasnoznamenniy Turkestan military district, the jubilee medal 70 Years of USSR Armed Forces, the Military Glory medal for bravery and heroism shown in the performance of international duty in the Afghanistan Republic and a medal For military services, and he served a term in the Afghanistan Republic in the post of commander of an army reconnaissance division (vol. 26, pages 110-120), he is a group 2 invalid and has paid full compensation for the damage caused (vol. 27, page 188).

Zhlobitskiy I.L. has no previous convictions (vol. 25, pages 395-396), is not registered at a drug clinic or psychoneurological clinic, has exceptionally positive character references from his place of residence (vol. 25, pages 397), suffers from a chronic illness (vol. 25, pages 326-329, 342-374), supports a dependent wife, elderly mother and three minor children, has higher education and several certificates of authorship for inventions. The court deems these to be mitigating circumstances. Steganova A.Ye. has no previous convictions (vol. 25, pages 144-146), is not registered at a drug clinic or psychoneurological clinic (vol. 25, pages 140-141), requires monitoring and treatment at a specialist hospital (vol. 25, page 95), suffers from a chronic illness (vol. 25, page 161), supports a dependent pensioner mother and a daughter who is a student at an institute (vol. 25, page 157) Voronkov O.Yu. has no previous convictions (vol. 24, pages 32-34), is not registered at a drug clinic or psychoneurological clinic, has no complaints against him at his place of residence (vol. 24, page 39), has a young child and has exceptionally positive character references from his place of work (vol. 24, page 110), Pechkin A.N. has no previous convictions (vol. 24, pages 238-240), is not registered at a drug clinic or psychoneurological clinic, has no complaints against him at his place of residence (vol. 24, page 237) and suffers from a chronic illness. The court considers circumstances mitigating Klyuyevs guilt to be the fact that he has paid full compensation for the damage, is a group 2 invalid, took part in military actions in the ranks of the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, has received government awards and the fact that he has committed a crime of medium gravity for the first time; taking into account [signature]

74
the foregoing, the court concludes that for the purposes of restoration of social justice his correction is possible without isolation from society, therefore it rules to suspend his sentence. The court considers circumstances mitigating the guilt of Steganova A.Ye. to be the fact that she supports her elderly, ill mother and student daughter; taking into consideration that she has committed a crime of medium gravity for the first time and her role in said act, the court concludes that for the purposes of restoration of social justice her correction is possible without isolation from society, therefore it sentences her under Article 73 RF Criminal Code. In handing down sentences for Zhlobitskiy, Pechkin and Voronkov, taking into consideration their roles in the act committed, the court believes that their correction is possible only in conditions of isolation from society; therefore it sentences them to punishment in the form of deprivation of liberty to be served in a penal colony. In accordance with Pursuant to Articles 81, 299(1)(12) RF Code of Criminal Procedure the court will what is to be done with the material evidence. Pursuant to Articles 296-299, 302-304, 307-309 RF Code of Criminal Procedure, the court has made the following VERDICT: To declare Klyuyev Dmitri Vladislavovich guilty of the commission of a crime under Articles 33(5), 165(2) RF Criminal Code and to sentence him to punishment in the form of deprivation of liberty for a term of 3 (three) years, with a fine in the amount of RUR 40,000 (forty thousand). Pursuant to Article 73 RF Criminal Code, the sentence of deprivation of liberty is suspended for 2 (two) years with a probationary period. To declare Zhlobitskiy Igor Leonidovich and Steganova Alevtina Yevgenevna guilty of the commission of a crime under Articles 33(5), 165(2) RF Criminal Code and to sentence them to the following punishment: Zhlobitskiy I.L., under Articles 33(5), 165(2) RF Criminal Code, to punishment in the form of deprivation of liberty for a term of 1 (one) year 6 (six) months, with no fine, to be served in a penal colony; Steganova A.Ye., under Articles 33(5), 165(2) RF Criminal Code, in the form of deprivation of liberty for a term of 1 (one) year 6 (six) months, with no fine. Pursuant to Article 73 RF Criminal Code, the sentence of deprivation of liberty set for Steganova A.Ye. is suspended for 2 (two) years with a probationary period. To count the time spent by Steganova A.Ye. in custody from 25 May 2005 to 8 August 2005 towards the term served for her sentence. To declare Pechkin Aleksei Aleksandrovich guilty of the commission of crimes under Article 165(2) RF Criminal Code, Article 327(3) RF Criminal Code and to sentence him, under Article 165(2) RF Criminal Code, to punishment in the form of deprivation of liberty for a term of 1 (one) year 6 (six) months with no fine; under Article 327(3) RF Criminal Code, to punishment in the form of corrective labour for a term of 2 (two) years, retaining of 10% of his wage for state revenue. Finally, for the crimes taken together, in accordance with Article 69(2) RF Criminal Code, by partial addition based on the calculation of one days deprivation of liberty per three [signature]

75
days of corrective labour, to sentence Pechkin V.A. to punishment in the form of deprivation of liberty for a term of 1 (one) year 8 (eight) months, with no fine, in a penal colony. To adjudge Voronkov Oleg Yurevich guilty of the commission of crimes under Article 165(2) RF Criminal Code, 33(5), 327(3) RF Criminal Code and to sentence him to punishment under Article 165(2) RF Criminal Code in the form of deprivation of liberty for a term of 1 (one) year 6 (six) months, with no fine; under Articles 33(5), 327(3) RF Criminal Code to punishment in the form of corrective labour for a term of 1 (one) year, retaining 10% of his wage for state revenue. Finally, based on the crimes taken together, in accordance with Article 69(2) RF Criminal Code, by partial addition based on the calculation of one days deprivation of liberty per three days of corrective labour, to sentence Voronkov O.Yu. to punishment in the form of deprivation of liberty for a term of 1 (one) year 7 (seven) months, with no fine, in a penal colony. To order Klyuyev D.V. and Steganova A.Ye., for the period of the probationary term, not to change their permanent place of residence without notifying the specialist state authority implementing the correction of convicted offenders, where they must appear for registration periodically, no less than once per month. Until the verdict comes into legal force, to leave the restraint measure against the convicted offenders Klyuyev and Steganova as before, in the form of recognizance not to leave and to maintain orderly conduct. Until the verdict comes into legal force, to leave the restraint measure against the convicted offenders Voronkov, Zhlobitskiy and Pechkin as before, in the form of confinement in custody. To calculate the term of the sentence from the time of detention as suspects: for Voronkov, from 31 March 2005; for Zhlobitskiy, from 3 March 2005; for Pechkin, from 29 April 2005. The material evidence: the files of arbitrazh case No. A53-445/2005/C3-40 (vol. 4, pages 16-316), the files of arbitrazh case No. A19-1964/05-6 (vol. 6, pages 47-231), the files of enforcement proceeding No. 4226/11/04 (vol. 2, pages 10-71), the documents removed from CB Universal Savings Bank LLC (vol. 11, pages 72-207)to remain in storage in the case files. The verdict may be appealed in Moscow city court within 10 (ten) days from the day of its announcement, within the same period by the convicted persons held in custody, but from the day on which a copy of the verdict is served to them. In the event that cassation appeals are filed, the convicted persons have the right to petition to participate in the hearing of the criminal case by a court of cassation. Judge T.M. Vasyuchenko [signature]