Leaked records raise questions about testimony in Abramovich oil case

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. [1] [2]

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.