Trial Opening Statement (7.16.2004)

This past year both the media and society have been actively discussing the following questions: What are the "YUKOS and Khodorkovsky cases," - a case involving a company singled out for politically motivated reasons or an average - though large - criminal case? And what does this mean for the country?

In my opinion, society has been aware of the political motives behind this case for a long time and for that reason I am not going to discuss this point here. Moreover, I do not want to make political declarations to cover up criminal charges.

I will mostly address the core of the charges.

First, I am being charged with acquiring shares of Apatit and the Scientific Research Institute of Fertilizers and Fungicides illegally. I will prove that this is simply a shoddy attempt to blame me for the errors in the privatization laws and for subsequent actions taken by government agencies.

Second, I am being charged with not giving credit to companies that were privately owned by me at that time, as the prosecution has claimed. For this reason, the prosecution has charged me with intentionally refusing to take my own money from one pocket and putting it into another.

Third, I am being charged with embezzling money from companies that I did not manage; but the prosecution insists that I was a shareholder of these companies. This means that the prosecution is charging me with causing harm to myself. The prosecution has insisted that I am guilty of conducting improper trade policies in connection with Apatit. However the shareholders do not have the power to do that. I want to point out that this "improper" trade policy has brought success and profitability to this company.

I will prove that these charges are as absurd from a legal perspective as they are from the perspective of everyday life.

I would like to point out that right now Apatit and the Scientific Research Institute of Fertilizers and Fungicides are successful Russian companies that are paying salaries, implementing good social programs, and raising production levels. In the case of the Scientific Research Institute of Fertilizers and Fungicides, it is one of the few successful Russian research centers today.

Fourth I am being charged with the fact that the owner of Media Most, Vladimir Gusinsky, took money as collateral for the assets of his media holding. He then did not return the money because his assets disappeared somewhere.

Thanks to the decision of the Strasbourg Court, the world knows now what happened to these assets and where they went. If necessary, I can prove that this charge is absurd as well.

Fifth, there are charges regarding taxes. I will prove the futility of these charges but also from the point of view of the law. This law [that was passed in the fall of 2003] stated that businesses are not at fault for errors made by the government. I will prove the absurdity of these charges also from an ethical point of view. In this way, I will show that YUKOS paid not less but more taxes than most other companies. YUKOS legally made use of tax breaks to a limited extent, and these tax breaks were within the law. From an everyday perspective, it is difficult to understand how it can turn out that a company, which is the second largest taxpayer in Russia after Gazprom and which is audited up to 500 times a year and whose accounts are confirmed by international audits and given to the Tax Ministry, sometimes in the presence of the Minister of Taxes and Levies, and which makes up five percent of the state's budget, should after four years pay much more in taxes than the industry average and even more than Gazprom. Why should YUKOS shareholders be held responsible [for this]? It is incomprehensible!

Sixth, I will prove that the Arbitration Court's infamous decision on YUKOS was against the law and directly contradicts the Tax Ministry's position, which is stated in the civil suit. The suit is demanding taxes from companies that do not exist.

In conclusion, I want to say that this demonstration of power that ignores the law, even though it tries to claim that external procedures are legal, presents the largest danger to our country.

Reponse to Birthday Greetings (7.1.2004)

On Tuesday June 29th, Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s response from “Matrosskaya Tishina” was received from his lawyers by the editors of his press-center. The response illustrated his gratitude to all who greeted him with his birthday.

All of the letters that I received, both regular and emails, telegrams, greetings through newspapers are definitely of great support at this difficult time. I have received many greetings in past years too, but now there are tens, if not hundreds times more, and obviously, they are all addressed not to an oligarch, but to a person, which means so much to me. Thank you. I will try to prove, that I am deserving of your support.
Sincerely, MBK