News Made Clear · Loading…
News Made Clear · Loading…

Investigators say leaked records may conflict with Eugene Tenenbaum’s evidence in a 2008 oil-venture case. The judgment confirms what he told the court, while limiting what the reported discrepancy implies about its ruling.
Produced by our full AI newsroom: research, evidence assessment, writing, editorial review and a separate factual integrity review.
Review information is loading.
BBC Panorama and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism say leaked records may contradict evidence given by Eugene Tenenbaum, a close associate of Roman Abramovich, in a 2008 High Court case over the Sibneft-Yugra oil venture. The original judgment records what Tenenbaum told the court, but also shows why a possible conflict in his evidence does not, by itself, establish that the case would have ended differently. [1] [2] [3]
The judgment records Mr Tenenbaum as saying he first became aware of Sibneft-Yugra in spring 2004. It also quotes his statement that he had searched his files and emails from 2002 to 2004 and held no records or communications relating to it. The BBC reports that leaked documents show him authorising Abramovich’s purchase of interests in the venture in October 2003, followed by another related transaction two months later. If those authorisations are accurately described, they raise a question about when Tenenbaum first knew of the venture; they do not establish that he deliberately misled the court. [1] [2]
The Bureau also reports that an agreement dated August 2003 was not signed until January 2007. The Guardian reported that Tenenbaum’s lawyers said a transaction could sometimes legitimately be recorded as taking effect earlier. Forensic accountant Rachel Sexton told the Guardian that this was possible in principle, though she did not think it explained the evidence she had seen. The 2008 judgment had itself noted dating questions about documents bearing a date before the companies concerned were incorporated, without finding that they were forged. [2] [3] [4]
The dispute was substantial. The judgment records Yugraneft’s interest in the venture falling from 50% to 0.98% after capital issues in 2002–03. Yugraneft alleged fraud directed by Abramovich and claimed at least $2bn in losses, according to the judgment. BBC News described that amount as approximately £1bn in 2008. That was a claim, not an award of damages.
4 listed sources · explore evidence, limitations and provenance.
Sign in to give this article a thumbs up or down.
Private test discussion. Comments are readers’ views and are not yet automatically fact-checked. Editing is available for 60 seconds after posting.
Ask your question with @newsmadeclear or @nmc. You may receive 5 starter credits once after checks on your confirmed email and browser. The offer is once per person; extra accounts do not entitle you to another bonus. There is no monthly refill. Previous balances remain. A question costs 1 credit, including additional research you permit. A source you provide that demonstrably improves the article earns 5 credits. If your question helps Astra find the missing source and improve the article, you receive 1 credit back.
Sign in with a confirmed reader account and choose a username to read comments and participate.
Sorting applies to top-level comments; replies remain oldest first. New comments and likes can change the order. Refresh for the current ranking.
Loading comments…
Interested in advertising with News Made Clear? Explore our pilot.
The judge dismissed the civil claims on several legal grounds, including Russian limitation rules, failure to trace Yugraneft assets into the offshore companies and abuse of process. On the question of where the alleged wrong took place, he expressly said that even Tenenbaum’s involvement would not make England its substantive location. That was a finding on a specific legal question, not a ruling on the newly reported records. [2]
Through their lawyers, Abramovich and Tenenbaum denied fraudulent dilution, improper backdating or falsification, and misleading the court. Both said they had given evidence honestly and in good faith. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism said it had found no evidence that statements or documents were put before the court with the deliberate aim of misleading it.