Documents from a major leak of offshore corporate records suggest that a close associate of Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich gave misleading evidence to a UK court during a billion-pound dispute over Siberian oil fields.
The findings centre on a 2008 High Court case involving Chalva Tchigirinsky, a former business partner of Abramovich, and the ownership of oil assets held through a joint venture linked to Sibneft.
According to an investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, BBC Panorama, The Guardian and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, leaked documents appear to contradict evidence given by Eugene Tenenbaum, a longtime associate of Abramovich.
Disputed Siberian Oil Venture
The legal dispute concerned Sibneft-Yugra, an oil venture in which Tchigirinsky's company, Yugraneft, had held an interest.
Yugraneft alleged that its stake was deliberately diluted through a series of transactions and secret meetings, eventually leaving the company with little or no value while Abramovich's side gained control of the oil assets.
The dispute reached London's High Court in 2008. Yugraneft sought damages against Abramovich and Millhouse Capital UK, alleging that its interest in the joint venture had effectively been reduced from 50% to less than 1%. The court ultimately dismissed the case on legal grounds, including questions surrounding jurisdiction.
The latest investigation does not claim that the newly uncovered evidence would necessarily have changed the judge's final ruling.
Documents Appear to Contradict Tenenbaum's Evidence
Tenenbaum, who was one of Abramovich's closest associates in London, gave evidence that he had no knowledge of the dealings at the centre of the dispute before Yugraneft raised its complaints.
According to the leaked documents, however, Tenenbaum appears to have authorised agreements connected to the very transactions he told the court he knew nothing about.
Among the documents identified by investigators are records relating to the transfer of Sibneft-Yugra shares in 2003 to Ferenco Investment & Services, a company associated with Abramovich.
The documents therefore appear to conflict with Tenenbaum's witness statement.
The investigation also found documents submitted to the court that appear to have been backdated and were used to support Abramovich's position concerning the takeover of Sibir, the company connected to Tchigirinsky.
Backdated Documents Raise Further Questions
The investigation is based on the Cyprus Confidential leak, which contains more than 500,000 corporate records.
The records reportedly reveal a wider pattern in which documents connected to Abramovich's offshore businesses were created or altered years after the dates appearing on them.
Investigators identified more than 1,000 documents that appear to have been backdated.
Some of the paperwork was allegedly prepared with assistance from personnel at Deloitte Cyprus, which had provided professional services to companies associated with Abramovich.
The documents appear to have been used to create a historical paper trail that supported transactions or ownership structures after the events had already taken place.
Abramovich and Tenenbaum Deny Wrongdoing
Abramovich has denied misleading the High Court and said he gave his evidence honestly and in good faith.
His lawyers also rejected suggestions that he was involved in fraudulent or premeditated dilution of Yugraneft's stake.
Tenenbaum similarly denied misleading the court or committing contempt. His lawyers said he gave his evidence honestly and in good faith.
They also argued that backdating documents can sometimes have legitimate purposes, such as recording the date on which a transaction became effective.
Deloitte Cyprus said it could not comment on specific historical correspondence because it no longer had access to material from more than two decades ago. The firm said it acts in compliance with applicable laws.
What the New Evidence Shows
The leaked documents provide a different picture of the events surrounding the Siberian oil dispute from the one presented in the 2008 court proceedings.
They appear to show that Tenenbaum had been involved in transactions that he said he had no knowledge of, while some documents relied upon during the case appear to have been created or backdated after the events they purported to record.
However, the investigation also stresses an important distinction: there is no evidence establishing that the documents or testimony were deliberately presented to the court with the intention of misleading it.
The new evidence also does not amount to a new court ruling that Abramovich or Tenenbaum committed fraud.
Instead, the documents raise questions about the accuracy of evidence presented during the earlier proceedings and the methods used to document transactions involving Abramovich's business empire.
Wider Questions Around Abramovich's Offshore Wealth
The High Court revelations form part of a broader investigation into how Abramovich's wealth was managed through offshore companies.
The Guardian reported that leaked records show attempts to restructure ownership and financial records involving billions of dollars generated from Abramovich's acquisition and subsequent sale of Sibneft assets.
The documents also raise questions about the involvement of professional advisers in creating or approving paperwork that investigators say appears to have been backdated.
Abramovich's representatives have rejected allegations of wrongdoing and stressed that he relied on professional advisers.
The findings are particularly significant because the disputed oil assets played a major role in the accumulation of Abramovich's fortune. He acquired Sibneft during Russia's post-Soviet privatisation period and later sold his remaining interest to Gazprom for billions of dollars.
The newly reported evidence does not overturn the 2008 judgment, but it adds previously unseen material to a long-running dispute over how control of the oil assets was transferred and how those transactions were subsequently documented.
