The short version
- Leaked financial records show Eugene Tenenbaum authorized transactions related to the Sibneft-Yugra joint venture months before he testified he became aware of it.
- The 2008 High Court case involved a dispute over diluted ownership stakes in Siberian oil fields, which Abramovich won after claiming Yugraneft defaulted on loans.
- Legal experts warn that if the new evidence is accurate, Tenenbaum’s previous testimony could constitute perjury or contempt of court, though his lawyers deny any wrongdoing.
Newly surfaced documents suggest that Eugene Tenenbaum, a former director of Chelsea Football Club and close associate of Roman Abramovich, may have misled a UK High Court judge during a pivotal 2008 legal battle. The files, part of the broader Cyprus Confidential investigation into offshore financial networks, indicate that Tenenbaum was actively involved in managing transactions related to a Siberian oil venture well before he claimed under oath to be unaware of its existence.
The original litigation centered on a joint venture between Abramovich’s company, Sibneft, and Yugraneft, the Russian subsidiary of Sibir Energy PLC. The partnership, known as Sibneft-Yugra, was designed to develop oil fields in Siberia, with Sibneft providing capital and Yugraneft supplying the necessary licenses. However, the collaboration dissolved bitterly after Sibir Energy’s 50 percent stake in the venture was diluted to less than one percent. Sibir Energy alleged this reduction occurred without their knowledge and constituted a massive fraud orchestrated by Abramovich.
During the 2008 proceedings in London, Tenenbaum testified that he only became aware of the Sibneft-Yugra arrangement in the spring of 2004. He further stated that he had searched his records from 2002 to 2004 and possessed no documents or communications relating to the joint venture. This testimony was crucial for Abramovich’s defense, which argued that Yugraneft had lost its rights to the shares due to an inability to repay loans exceeding $30 million, rather than through fraudulent dilution.
The leaked financial records contradict Tenenbaum’s earlier statements. Documents reviewed by investigators show that in October 2003, several months before his stated date of awareness, Tenenbaum authorized Abramovich’s purchase of shares in the joint venture. Two months later, he approved another financial deal connected to the same operation. These actions suggest a level of involvement and knowledge that directly conflicts with his sworn evidence given to the court more than two decades ago.
Legal experts have highlighted the severity of these discrepancies. Andrew Mitchell KC, a specialist in financial services law, noted that if Tenenbaum’s 2008 testimony was indeed false, the implications could range from perjury to an attempt to pervert the course of justice or contempt of court. The integrity of professional advisers involved in high-profile oligarchic wealth management is now under renewed scrutiny as part of this ongoing investigative series.
Despite the new evidence, representatives for both Abramovich and Tenenbaum have firmly denied any misconduct. Abramovich’s legal team stated that their client denies all allegations made against him. Similarly, Tenenbaum’s lawyers asserted that he gave his evidence honestly and in good faith, adding that he cannot recall the specific context or details of documents from over twenty years ago. They rejected suggestions that he committed perjury or contempt.
The 2008 case concluded with Abramovich securing victory on multiple fronts, including a ruling that Yugraneft’s lawsuit was an abuse of process. The judge at the time noted that Tenenbaum’s actual knowledge of the deal would not have altered his decision. However, the emergence of these documents raises serious questions about the transparency and accuracy of the evidence presented during those proceedings.
This development is part of a larger pattern of revelations regarding Abramovich’s financial operations. Previous investigations by the BBC and international media partners have uncovered how major accountancy firms, including Deloitte, assisted in falsifying documents to hide wealth and evade taxes. The current leak covers a network of offshore companies administered from Cyprus between 1995 and 2022, continuing to expose the mechanisms used to manage and obscure significant assets.
The implications of these findings extend beyond the specific oil dispute. They underscore the complexities of holding powerful figures accountable when financial records are obscured through offshore structures and potentially misleading testimony. As the Cyprus Confidential investigation continues to yield new information, the focus remains on verifying the extent of deception and understanding how such practices influenced legal outcomes in the UK.
While the statute of limitations may prevent immediate legal repercussions for the 2008 testimony, the reputational damage to those involved is significant. The case illustrates the challenges faced by courts in relying on self-reported knowledge from individuals deeply embedded in complex financial networks. Future inquiries may need to account for such discrepancies when evaluating historical claims regarding asset ownership and corporate governance.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- BBC News↗Abramovich's close associate misled UK court in £1bn oil-fields case, documents suggest
