Abramovich's close associate misled UK court in £1bn oil-fields case, documents suggest

Abramovich associate misled UK court in £1bn oil-fields case, documents suggest

One of Roman Abramovich’s closest associates appears to have misled a UK court in order to help secure ownership of Siberian oil fields, leaked documents seen by the BBC suggest.

Eugene Tenenbaum, a former director of Chelsea Football Club, was helping manage the billionaire’s wealth at the time of the 2008 case, which Abramovich won.

Tenenbaum was giving evidence in proceedings brought against Abramovich by a company owned by another Russian billionaire, who said the oil fields had been stolen from him and other investors.

The leaked documents now indicate there may have been a pre-planned effort by Abramovich to lower the value of the other investors’ stake in the Siberian venture.

Roman Abramovich’s lawyers say their “client denies all the allegations made against him”.

Lawyers for Eugene Tenenbaum say he “denies in the strongest terms any suggestion that he committed perjury or contempt of court”.

The 2008 case focused on ownership of Siberian oil fields jointly developed between Abramovich’s company, Sibneft, and the Russian subsidiary of the British company Sibir Energy PLC, owned by Russian billionaire Chalva Tchigirinsky.

Sibneft provided the money, while the subsidiary Yugraneft supplied the licences for the oil fields.

Their partnership, which became known as Sibneft-Yugra, ended badly.

Sibir’s 50% stake in the joint venture had been diluted, or cut, to less than 1%. It said this happened without its knowledge.

Failed attempts to sue Sibneft in both Russia and the British Virgin Islands led to the court case in London.

In court in 2008, Yugraneft claimed “to have been the victim of a massive fraud directed by Mr Abramovich”, causing it a loss of “not less that $2 billion”, which in 2008 was worth about £1bn.

But Abramovich’s team argued that Yugraneft had been unable to repay loans of more than $30m, and therefore lost its rights over the shares.

Abramovich won on several grounds, including that Yugraneft’s case had been an abuse of process.

However, Panorama has uncovered new evidence suggesting the court was misled, in a joint investigation with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

The evidence comes from a leak of documents about Abramovich’s finances and the activities of a network of offshore companies run from Cyprus between 1995 and 2022. It raises serious questions about the integrity of some of the oligarch’s professional advisers.

We have already found that the world’s biggest accountancy firm, Deloitte, helped falsify documents to conceal his wealth and avoid tax.

At the High Court, lawyers for Yugraneft argued the case should be heard in London, and that Tenenbaum, who was based there at the time, must have known about the dilution of Yugraneft’s interest.

But Tenenbaum denied this and told the court “he only became aware of Sibneft-Yugra in Spring 2004”.

He also said he had “searched” his “files, emails and documents from 2002 to 2004” and had in his “possession no records or documents or other communications that relate to Sibneft-Yugra”.

But the leaked documents suggest he misled the court.

They show that in October 2003, months before Tenenbaum said he first learned of Sibneft-Yugra, he had authorised Abramovich’s purchase of shares in the joint venture.

Two months later, Tenenbaum authorised another financial transaction linked to Sibneft-Yugra.

Andrew Mitchell KC, an expert in financial services law, told Panorama that if Tenenbaum’s 2008 evidence was false it would be “very serious” and could “range from being perjury, to an attempt to pervert the course of justice, to being a contempt of the court”.

Tenenbaum’s lawyers told us “he gave his evidence honestly and in good faith” and that he “cannot recall the context or detail of documents” more than 20 years old.

The judge made clear in his 2008 judgment that Tenenbaum’s knowledge of the Sibneft-Yugra deal would not have affected his decision. However, the leak also suggests some of the documents submitted by Abramovich’s legal team to the High Court had been falsified.

One agreement was dated August 2003, but appears not to have been created or actually signed until 2007.

Abramovich’s team argued in court that Yugraneft’s interest had been diluted because the joint venture needed financing.

They said Tchigirinsky had approached them “in the spring of 2002” about new financing arrangements. Tchigirinsky denied that this was the case.

The leaked documents show that before then, in January 2002, Abramovich’s Russian associates had already prepared a set of documents.

These included agreements under which two Abramovich companies would buy shares in Sibneft-Yugra, increasing his stake and diluting Yugraneft’s.

This evidence suggests they were already planning to dilute Yugraneft’s interest and that the financing argument used in court was a smokescreen.

Lawyers for Abramovich said: “The Judgment made no finding that the dilution was premeditated”, or that it was “fraudulent”. They added: “The Judge found that our client received no property belonging to Yugraneft, and that no Yugraneft asset could be traced into his hands.”