The former head of Uzbekneftegaz did not admit guilt and testified on 19 counts of the case.

Former head of Uzbekneftegaz, Bakhodirjon Sidikov, pleaded not guilty and testified on 19 counts. He explained the company's decisions as being driven by the need to maintain gas production, comply with government regulations, obligations to foreign creditors and investors, and commercial disputes with contractors.

The second hearing in the criminal case took place on July 31 in the Yashnabad District Court (the first was on July 24). A Gazeta correspondent attended and covered key points of the hearing.

The court has not yet assessed either the prosecutor's arguments or the defendants' testimony. The information below represents the parties' positions as expressed in open court, not the circumstances established by the court.

Under the presumption of innocence, all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty in accordance with established law and confirmed by a final court verdict.

In addition to Bakhodirjon Sidikov, the following defendants are involved in the case: Ulugbek Usmonov (representative of Enter Engineering), Nodirjon Boboev (representative of Eriell Management), Bakhtiyar Anarkulov (former deputy chairman of the board of Uzbekneftegaz), Dilmurod Burkhanov (head of the company's procurement department), and Dilshod Khakberdiev (head of Maxsusenergogaz, a subsidiary of Uzbekneftegaz).

Among the defendants are also Alisher Ochilov (head of Oilgasservisinvest), Khamidulla Asatov (head of Petromaruz Uzbekistan), and Masudjon Khashimov (head of Oil Ravon Servis).

The trial is being presided over by Judge Jasurbek Ubaydullaev.

At the beginning of the hearing, the judge announced the addition of four new lawyers. Some of them represent individuals whose property rights may be affected by the case.

The hearing discussed the property seized during the investigation. Specifically, Lexus, Li Auto L9, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz vehicles were mentioned.

One of the lawyers also reported the seizure of 15 properties linked to one of the defendants. According to the defense attorney, some of the houses are registered to his children, spouse, nephew, and assistant. The lawyer stated that some properties were inherited, while others were purchased with funds transferred from Russia.

The defense proposed first questioning those claiming rights to the seized property and then moving on to the witnesses. The prosecutor, on the contrary, deemed it necessary to question the key witnesses first.

The court recognized some owners or claimants to the property as civil defendants. This will allow them to attend hearings and defend their property interests in the trial without testifying as witnesses.

Bakhodirzhon Sidikov's lawyer drew the court's attention to the fact that, at the time of his arrest, his client was a member of the Kungrad District Council of People's Deputies.

According to the defense, a motion from the Prosecutor General and the consent of the Jokarghi Kenes of Karakalpakstan were required to prosecute, detain, or remand the deputy.

The lawyer stated that Sidikov was detained in January, while his parliamentary powers were still in effect. He claimed the decision was considered at a later session, and Sidikov's parliamentary powers were officially terminated only on June 15.

The defense believes that the detention and testimony obtained during this period violated parliamentary immunity. Therefore, the lawyer requested that evidence collected before immunity was lifted be declared inadmissible.

The judge stated that the admissibility of this evidence would be considered later, after reviewing the relevant materials. At this stage of the trial, the court declined to rule on the motion.

After reviewing organizational matters, the prosecutor began to read the charges. The state prosecutor alleged that Bakhodirjon Sidikov allegedly organized the group, directed it, and assigned tasks to its members for the purpose of embezzling Uzbekneftegaz property and state funds.

According to investigators, the participants in the alleged scheme prepared documents for projects they knew in advance were unprofitable, provided false information to government agencies, inflated the cost of equipment, work, and services, and transferred funds for uncompleted or partially completed work.

The charges also relate to failure to collect accounts receivable, the transfer of oil and gas assets, and the financing of projects that, according to investigators, could not produce the expected results.

The above is the prosecution's position, which must be verified by the court. The defendants' guilt has not been established by the final verdict.

When announcing the indictment, the prosecutor cited a sum of approximately 2.4 trillion soums, which, according to the prosecution, were embezzled between 2020 and 2025. The total damage to Uzbekneftegaz was estimated at 7.8 trillion soums. The relationship between these amounts and whether they included the same incidents was not specifically explained at the hearing.

Since the defendants and their lawyers had previously reviewed the indictment, the defense requested that it not be read in full. In the absence of objections, the court permitted the prosecutor to read the main incidents and articles of the Criminal Code.

Bakhodirjon Sidikov has been charged under Articles 167 (embezzlement or misappropriation), 205 (abuse of power or official authority), 209 (forgery in an official capacity), and 243 (money laundering) of the Criminal Code.

Bakhtiyor Anarkulov is charged under Articles 167, 205, and 209, while Dilmurod Burkhanov is charged under Articles 167 and 209.

Other defendants, including Dilshod Khakberdiev, Ulugbek Usmonov, Alisher Achilov, Khamidulla Asatov, and Masudzhon Khashimov, are charged under Articles 167 and 209 through Article 28 of the Criminal Code (complicity).

After the charges were announced, the judge asked the defendants whether they admitted guilt.

Bakhodirzhon Sidikov stated that he fully denied guilt and disagreed with the charges. During the hearing, he further stated that he had not committed any theft and had acted in the interests of the company. He devoted a significant portion of his speech to explaining the economic and operational reasons for his decisions.

Bakhtiyor Anarkulov, Dilmurod Burkhanov, Dilshod Khakberdiev, Ulugbek Usmonov, Khamidulla Asatov, Masudzhon Khashimov, and Nodirzhon Boboev also denied the charges.

Bakhodirzhon Sidikov was the first to testify, commenting on each of the 19 charges.

The first charge concerns the sale of a stake in Jizzakh Petroleum, which subsequently became part of SANEG.

The joint venture Jizzakh Petroleum was established in June 2017 by Uzbekneftegaz and Gas Project Development Central Asia (a subsidiary of Gazprom International).

According to the prosecution, the initial valuation of the 49% stake was over $80 million. It was transferred to a Cypriot company, Belvor, associated with SANEG, for $10 million, with the buyer yet to pay the remaining $71 million.

Sidikov stated that the initial deal took place in June 2021, when he was not yet the chairman of Uzbekneftegaz. He claimed he was not involved in drafting its terms and did not sign the original agreement.

The main point of contention, according to the defendant, was the value of the stake. KPMG (one of the "Big Four" global audit and consulting firms) valued it at approximately $87 million, Deloitte (another of the Big Four) at 1 soum, and PwC, later brought in, at $15.1 million.

According to Sidikov, the investigation estimates the difference of approximately $71 million as damages. He described this as the result of a dispute between Uzbekneftegaz and the foreign buyer of Belvoir over the asset's value, rather than a stolen sum.

The deal remained unfinished for approximately eighteen months, despite the transfer of the stake being stipulated by a government decree. Sidikov stated that after his appointment, he merely ensured the execution of this decision. Due to the buyer's failure to fulfill payment obligations, Uzbekneftegaz, he said, appealed to the economic court.

As a reminder, Uzbekneftegaz completed a transaction to dispose of a 49% stake in Jizzakh Petroleum and transferred it to the Cypriot offshore company Belvor Holding Limited in 2021.

The following incidents relate to the transfer of 106 oil and gas fields to SANEG and their cadastral registration (Gazeta reported on the transaction in detail).

According to the prosecution, the fields were initially transferred for temporary use without finalizing the contracts, and then their sale was agreed upon with a 10-year installment plan. Investigators believe the assets were sold for approximately 90 billion soums below their justified value, and the payment schedule was subsequently relaxed.

Sidikov stated that the asset transfer was stipulated by a Cabinet of Ministers resolution adopted prior to his appointment. He denied that the value of the fields had been reduced as a result of the new appraisal.

According to him, only the tax component of the transaction had changed following the reduction of the VAT rate from 15% to 12%. Therefore, the $9.6 million difference cited by the prosecution does not constitute damages from the undervaluation of the property.

He explained the postponement of the final payment deadline by saying that the government's decision initially stipulated a 10-year installment plan. The change in the payment frequency from one to six months, according to Sidikov, also took into account restrictions imposed by Uzbekneftegaz's international creditors.

He stated that the company was in a difficult financial situation and had to comply with covenants on external loans. Its ability to attract new financing was limited to approximately $50 million per year, which, according to him, was not enough to cover even the company's monthly expenses.

Separately, the investigation indicates that the rights to some of the fields were not re-registered in a timely manner. As a result, according to the prosecution, Uzbekneftegaz paid approximately 10.4 billion soums in land taxes to SANEG in 2023–2025.

Sidikov claimed he did not act in the interests of a private company. He claimed that Uzbekneftegaz filed claims and filed lawsuits to collect the accounts receivable.

One of the largest incidents concerns the expansion of the Shurtan Gas Chemical Complex and the creation of the Ark Chemical joint venture.

In December 2021, following the launch of the GTL plant, the president launched construction of a new complex to triple the capacity of the Shurtan Gas Chemical Complex. The project cost was estimated at $1.84 billion, of which $629 million was to be Uzbekneftegaz's own funds, and $1.21 billion was to be foreign loans.

The Shurtan Gas Chemical Complex expansion project, costing over $1 billion, had been underway since 2018. Enter Engineering was the contractor, and it received an advance payment of 693.7 billion soums.

In August 2022, after a Cabinet of Ministers meeting, the project was decided to be merged with a larger MTO complex in the Bukhara region (Gazeta reported on the project in detail). Ark Chemical was created to implement the industrial cluster.

According to the prosecution, Uzbekneftegaz's share in the joint venture was 40%, while the private partner received 60% but failed to make the required contribution. The investigation estimated the damage to state interests in this incident at 7.8 trillion soums.

Sidikov disagreed with this calculation. He stated that the investigation is effectively presenting investment processes in an unfinished industrial project as damage.

Uzbekneftegaz, according to Sidikov, contributed assets or capital worth approximately $416 million, as assessed by PwC.

The foreign partner was supposed to provide a 60% stake—approximately $660 million. Sidikov acknowledged that these obligations were not fully met, but attributed this to the investor's financial difficulties (which had "Russian roots" and attracted $200 million in financing from Gazprom), including those that arose after the start of Russia's war against Ukraine.

At the same time, he stated, equipment was ordered, work on site continued, and a groundbreaking ceremony attended by the country's leader was held in 2024. The partner's contribution was planned to be finalized after construction was completed, sometime before 2028.

Sidkov stated that the participation of the American company Air Products confirmed the viability of the project and the possibility of attracting international partners. He estimated the total cost of the Ark Chemical project at approximately $1 billion, and the entire MTO complex at $5.5 billion.

In response to questions from the parties, he added that Uzbekneftegaz, with a 40% stake, was a minority participant and could not unilaterally control the decisions of the 60% stakeholder, halt its spending, or force it to accelerate investments.

The next episode concerns the obligations to Air Products as part of the Uzbekistan GTL project.

Sidikov reported that more than 2,400 defects and deficiencies were identified after the plant's construction. About 50 critical defects were discovered in three main units, including air separation equipment. According to him, this caused the plant to operate at approximately 72% of its capacity.

Failure to meet the loan agreement's targets, the defendant stated, created the risk of a demand for early repayment of approximately $2.4 billion. The Ministry of Economy and Finance acted as guarantor for the obligations, so the financial burden could have been transferred to the state.

To resolve the issue, an agreement was reached with Air Products, with whom the Uzbek government signed a $1 billion investment agreement in May 2023 to develop an industrial gas processing complex within the Uzbekistan GTL plant in the Kashkadarya region.

Air Products President and CEO Seifi Ghasemi stated that the company will own and operate two air separation units, two autothermal reformers, and a hydrogen production unit within the GTL complex, and will also supply oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, and synthetic gas on a long-term basis under a take-or-pay/fixed-fee contract with Uzbekneftegaz. Uzbekneftegaz will supply feedstock, natural gas, and utilities, as well as sell all products.

The three key units were planned to be handed over to the American company after the defects were corrected. Responsibility for their correction was assigned to Enter Engineering.

According to Sidikov, neither the contractor nor Uzbekneftegaz had available funds for rapid repairs. Air Products agreed to finance the work, Enter Engineering was to pay in three installments, and Uzbekneftegaz acted as guarantor.

When the contractor failed to make a payment of $21.8 million, the state-owned company settled with Air Products. Sidikov stated that refusing to honor the guarantee would have created risks for Uzbekistan's reputation with the international investor and could have led to claims from creditors.

Before transferring the funds, he said, he informed the Presidential Administration and received permission. Enter Engineering's debt was planned to be settled through mutual obligations between the parties for other work, including drilling and geological exploration.

Sidikov insisted that the decision was made to preserve the project and the trust of foreign investors, not to provide an unjustified advantage to the contractor.

Another incident concerns the construction of a booster compressor station at the Yuzhny Tandyrcha field.

Work began in June 2021 and was scheduled for completion by the end of that year. Sidikov emphasized that he only took over as head of Uzbekneftegaz in March 2023 and therefore was not involved in selecting the contractor or signing the initial contract.

By the fall of 2023, the project remained unfinished. Meanwhile, the station needed to be operational before the winter season to provide the population and the economy with additional gas volumes.

Sidikov approved the operational schedule and authorized the allocation of 8.8 billion soums for the purchase of equipment, spare parts, and other components. He stated that the funds were allocated within the amounts previously withheld under the contract with the contractor, and not in excess of the project cost.

According to the defendant, these actions made it possible to complete the work and launch the station. Therefore, he considers the amount charged to be expenses for restoring the stalled project, not damages.

In the Surgil case, the charges relate to expensive compressor station equipment.

Sidikov explained that the reservoir pressure at the field was initially around 200 atmospheres, but subsequently dropped to approximately 6. Therefore, continued production depended on the operation of the compressor station.

He denied the claim that the engine, worth approximately 111.7 billion soums, was missing or stolen. According to Sidikov, the equipment was delivered and installed. He claimed to have photographs and records to support this claim. He also claimed to have personally seen the engine during a visit to Surgil with the Prime Minister.

However, in June 2025, an accident occurred. According to the defendant, an engineer from a foreign service company failed to remove the process plugs, causing the engine to run without oil, and the temperature rose to 220 degrees Celsius.

The equipment was sent to Florence for repairs. Its return, according to the court, is expected in September 2026.

Sidikov emphasized that he did not sign a contract for the equipment supply. He stated that the presence of the engine and its subsequent failure rule out the possibility of theft of the missing equipment.

Another incident concerns the purchase of two AI gas generator engines for a total cost of approximately 162.5 billion soums.

Sidikov stated that Uzbekneftegaz operates approximately 100 such engines. Their service life is approximately 25,000 hours, so the equipment periodically requires repair or replacement. The company's annual requirement, he said, reaches 10-15 units.

The engines were previously supplied by the Ukrainian company Motor Sich, but due to supply issues, it was decided to create a reserve of eight units. Two engines were purchased from Enter Engineering.

One of them, according to Sidikov, continues to operate. The second, after about a week of operation—approximately 180 hours—failed.

He acknowledged the warranty issue: the engine had been sitting in a warehouse for some time, and the warranty could have expired. However, the defendant described the incident as a commercial dispute over quality and warranty, not theft.

"We didn't steal money; we were trying to provide the population with gas," stated Bakhodirjon Sidikov.

He also stated that his deputy signed the contract, and the company's specialized department provided technical support for the project.

Another incident concerns the transfer of diesel fuel to Enter Engineering for the operation of specialized equipment at the Gazli underground gas storage facility.

According to Sidikov, the contractor was effectively given fuel worth approximately 3.8 billion soums. Enter Engineering initially failed to pay for it, but the contract stipulated a 90-day period for voluntary repayment.

After the deadline expired, Uzbekneftegaz filed a lawsuit in economic court, demanding the recovery of the debt, penalties, and other accruals.

Sidikov stated that the investigation is attempting to criminalize civil relations between the client and the contractor. The statute of limitations, he claimed, had not expired, and Enter Engineering subsequently paid off the debt in full.

The tenth incident concerns the transfer of an advance payment to Maxsusenergogaz for the implementation of a project at the Yuzhny Kemachi field.

The contract was valued at approximately 167 billion soums, with the advance payment amounting to 54.7 billion soums, or approximately 30%. According to Sidikov, the feasibility studies were performed by Uzbekneftegaz's design institute.

The defendant rejected the claim that the project was initially unviable. He explained that the advance payment was required to order equipment and begin preparatory work.

Later, after additional analysis, the decision was made to suspend construction. Experts concluded that gas could be extracted using an existing compressor station at the neighboring Kokdumalak oil and gas condensate field.

Sidikov stated that this decision saved several million dollars and was therefore made in the company's interests. After the contractor failed to return the advance payment, Uzbekneftegaz filed a lawsuit in September 2025.

The funds were subsequently deposited into the Prosecutor General's Office's escrow account. Sidikov stated that the money was not cashed and that the damages were compensated.

The 11th incident also involves Maxsusenergogaz. The transferred funds amounted to approximately 31.4 billion soums.

Due to declining reservoir pressure, the construction of a compressor station was required to extend the life of the Kultak field until 2044.

Work did not begin because technical measurements had to be conducted first. This data was required by both the contractor and the foreign manufacturer of the equipment to be installed at the station.

The defendant rejected the theory that management intentionally withheld the advance payment in the hopes of writing off the debt later. According to him, the statute of limitations did not expire until the end of 2028.

Sidikov also said that during his tenure, Uzbekneftegaz implemented an automated system that generated accounts receivable statements. The legal department then submitted the materials to the court.

The funds for this project, according to the defendant, were also transferred to the Prosecutor General's Office's escrow account. He again rejected the suggestion that they were cashed out or laundered.

The 12th episode concerns a gas exploration project at the Tuti-Maidan field in Afghanistan.

One of the prosecution's arguments, according to Sidikov's testimony, is the lack of a completed feasibility study. The defendant countered that a full-fledged feasibility study cannot be completed before initial exploration and the acquisition of reserve information.

According to him, amid declining domestic production, Uzbekneftegaz prepared a proposal for gas exploration and production in Afghanistan and submitted it to the Cabinet of Ministers. The project was posted on the state portal and received government support.

A company was created to implement it. The Afghan side required a $24 million security deposit to be placed in a local bank. Another $2 million was planned for initial work, including road construction and land preparation.

Sidikov stated that Uzbekneftegaz was to receive a 60% stake, with the remaining 40% going to two other investors. The state-owned company provided $24 million to Eriell as a loan at 14% per annum for placement in an Afghan bank.

The feasibility study was planned to be completed by the end of 2026, after preliminary geological exploration. According to Sidikov, the project could secure gas supplies from Afghanistan and contribute to Uzbekistan's energy security.

Sidikov combined the 13th and 14th counts. They concern the sale of two administrative buildings by Anorbank, which the prosecution believes were sold at an undervalued price. The estimated damages were estimated at approximately 58 billion soums.

Sidikov recalled that the authorities announced the future relocation of government agencies and organizations to New Tashkent. The construction of the new administrative center was intended to be partially financed by the sale of old buildings.

The buildings in question were located at 21 Istikbol Street (the building was owned by a subsidiary of Uzbekneftegaz and housed the Ministry of Energy) and 85A Shakhrisabz Street (the former Uztransgaz building).

According to Sidikov, several buyers were interested in the buildings. Anorbank founder Kakhramonjon Alimov stated that the bank was prepared to purchase both buildings at a price determined by appraisers.

Had the buildings been auctioned openly, they could have gone to different buyers, but the bank needed both properties due to its large number of employees. Based on a government decision, they were sold directly: the Uzbekneftegaz building for approximately 254 billion soums, and the Uztransgaz building for 185 billion soums.

The defendant stated that the proceeds were transferred in full to the New Tashkent Construction Directorate.

Sidikov claimed that approximately 12 billion soums, mentioned in the indictment for the renovation of one of the buildings, were outstanding debts for previously completed work.

He also stated that the Cabinet of Ministers had the right to approve a direct sale or a closed auction, as the relevant authority was granted by a presidential decree.

The 15th count concerns the sale of the Dzharkurganneft asset to Petromaruz Uzbekistan. The indictment cites a sum of approximately 254 billion soums.

Sidikov stated that the deal was concluded before his appointment. The government's decision stipulated the sale of the property with a five-year installment plan.

The appraisal was conducted by several companies, including Ernst & Young. Sidikov rejected the claim that the differences between the appraisals were unjustified.

After the buyer defaulted on its payment obligations, Uzbekneftegaz filed a lawsuit. A decision was made to recover 72.6 billion soums and penalties.

Sidikov also commented on allegations of subsequent transfers of Petromaruz funds to the accounts of other private companies. According to him, Uzbekneftegaz had no control over how the private company managed its own funds.

He stated that the basis for the transaction was a Cabinet of Ministers resolution, and the buyer's failure to pay became the subject of an economic dispute and legal action.

The 16th episode concerns the engagement of the Russian company Energy of Oil and Gas Service (ENGS) for drilling at the Berdakh field.

According to testimony, the prosecution compared the cost of the Russian contractor's work with estimates from Uzneftegaz Burgilash Ishlari (a company within Uzbekneftegaz). The local company estimated the work at approximately 59.8 billion soums, while the foreign company estimated it at approximately 106 billion soums.

Sidikov stated that the terms of the proposals differed. Uzneftegaz Burgilash Ishlari planned to drill the well in approximately 200 days, while the Russian company promised to complete it in 90 days.

Furthermore, the contractor attracted financing from Russia, offered a six-month installment plan, and offered payment in rubles.

Sidikov explained the need to engage an external company by citing a lack of in-house capacity. According to him, Uzneftegaz Burgilash had 23 drilling rigs, while the annual plan called for drilling approximately 100 wells.

The defendant stated that the goal was to expedite work and increase production, not to create a price differential to embezzle funds.

During the prosecutor's questioning, it emerged that the promised 90-day deadline had not been met: in fact, the work lasted approximately 197 days, almost as long as the local company's schedule had envisaged.

Sidikov responded that when selecting a contractor, not only the stated deadlines were assessed, but also their previous results, technical capabilities, and access to financing.

According to him, the drilling produced approximately 6 billion cubic meters of gas, which helped partially cover winter demand.

The court has yet to examine this argument and its connection to a specific contract.

Count 17 concerns the supply of pipes by Oil Ravon Servis worth approximately 37.1 billion soums.

Sidikov emphasized that the procurement began before his appointment: the goods were listed on the exchange in January 2023, the contract was signed in February, and he became chairman of Uzbekneftegaz in March.

Therefore, he stated that he could not have "physically and legally" organized the alleged collusion in selecting the supplier and concluding the agreement.

Sidikov also rejected the claim that the delivery was fictitious. According to him, the pipes were in fact delivered, inspected and accepted by a commission, and the presence of the products is confirmed by reports and employee testimony.

Later, the supplier demanded recovery of approximately 20 billion soums in principal and approximately 10 billion soums in penalties. In August 2023, the parties entered into a mediation agreement.

The defendant described this incident as a dispute over payment for the pipes actually delivered, not embezzlement.

The 18th incident relates to the repair of turbine equipment and the company Oilgasservisinvest. The estimated damages are estimated at approximately 15.1 billion soums.

According to Sidikov, Uzbekneftegaz initially planned to contact Siemens, but the company could only begin repairs eight months later. Due to the need to quickly return the equipment to service, another company was found—Chemie Elektronik from Germany (represented by Oilgasservisinvest), which promised to complete the work in three months for approximately 13 billion soums.

Sidikov stated that his deputy was in charge of the project, negotiated the terms and signed the contract. The former chairman himself, he said, did not interfere with these decisions.

The contractor failed to complete the work on time. In September and December, Uzbekneftegaz filed complaints, after which it filed a lawsuit demanding approximately 15.5 billion soums and approximately 4 billion soums in penalties.

After the criminal case was opened, over 15 billion soums were transferred to the Prosecutor General's Office's escrow account.

Sidikov stated that the money had been returned, and that the incident should be viewed as a failure to fulfill contractual obligations, not as irreparable damage to the state.

The final, 19th, incident is related to Article 243 of the Criminal Code—money laundering.

According to Sidikov, investigators seized approximately 20 properties and four vehicles linked to him and his relatives.

He stated that the list included the property of not only close family members, but also distant relatives, people with the same last name, and strangers.

Sidikov claimed that some of the properties were acquired between 2014 and 2018, and in 2022—before his appointment as Chairman of the Board of Uzbekneftegaz.

Sidikov denied that this property was acquired with proceeds from the crimes he is accused of.

After the main portion of his testimony, the prosecutor and lawyers questioned Sidikov on specific incidents.

The state prosecutor clarified why the Russian contractor, who promised to drill a well in 90 days, actually worked for only 197 days. Sidikov again cited the totality of the contract terms—the company's experience, technical capabilities, and the financing provided.

"It's like comparing the cost of pilaf cooked at home with that of one ordered at a restaurant," he said, referring to the difference in the cost of the work.

The parties also returned to the valuation of the transferred fields. Sidikov reiterated that the value of the assets themselves had not changed, and the difference in calculations arose after the VAT rate was reduced.

The lawyer asked for clarification as to who made the decisions regarding the transfer of property. The defendant replied that the lists of assets and the terms of sale were approved by government decrees.

Regarding the Ark Chemical project, Sidikov again pointed out that Uzbekneftegaz owned only 40% and could not unilaterally determine the actions of its majority partner.

He also stated that gas production plans for the following year were developed jointly with Schlumberger specialists. These plans outlined where production could be increased, how many wells needed to be drilled, when compressor stations would be commissioned, and what technical measures were necessary to meet the plan.

According to the defendant, these forecasts served as the basis for hiring contractors and financing projects.

Sidikov also stated that when discussing projects and contracts with Enter Engineering, the Russian company Energy of Oil and Gas Service, and Eriell, he communicated directly with the beneficiary of these companies, Bakhtiyor Fazylov.

He stated that he was unaware of the role played by Ulugbek Usmonov, a representative of Enter Engineering and the defendant in the case, in the projects under consideration and did not see him participate in negotiations or decision-making.

After one of the breaks, the judge's assistant approached a Gazeta reporter, clarified his identity, and stated that coverage of the trial was allegedly prohibited.

The journalist reported that he had attended the previous hearing and had already published material on the case. The court had previously restricted photo, video, and audio recordings, but had not banned written coverage of the public trial.

After an assistant informed the judge of the journalist's presence, the presiding judge clarified his identity and urged caution in publishing information.

The judge, however, stated that he could not prohibit coverage of the hearing, as the trial was open and freedom of the media existed. Some lawyers subsequently spoke out against publishing the testimony of the participants in the case.

The case remains under consideration. The court still must examine documents, question the remaining defendants and witnesses, verify damage calculations, and provide a legal assessment of the arguments of the prosecution and defense.

Until the trial's conclusion, allegations of embezzlement, abuse of power, fictitious projects, and money laundering remain the prosecution's case, which the court must examine. Sidikov's explanations regarding the economic necessity of the decisions, the implementation of government decrees, and the existence of civil disputes have also not yet received judicial review.

The next meeting will take place on August 7.