Chapter 4: Did Alexander Litvinenko fall out with and/or attempt to blackmail Boris Berezovsky?

¶5.30 Item 17 of the Inquiry's List of Issues refers to the "possible involvement of Boris

¶Berezovsky in Alexander Litvinenko's death".

¶5.31 This issue arises from allegations that have been made principally, but not solely,

by Andrey Lugovoy. Put very shortly, the allegation is that Mr Litvinenko fell out with Mr Berezovsky about money in the months before he died, that he then tried to blackmail Mr Berezovsky, and that as a result Mr Berezovsky ordered his killing.

¶5.32 This allegation was advanced by Mr Lugovoy at the press conference that he held

in Moscow on 31 May 2007. He told the press that he had three explanations for Mr Litvinenko's death. The first two were that Mr Litvinenko had been killed by UK agencies or by the Russian mafia. His third explanation, which he said seemed to him to be "the most plausible", was as follows:

"I am talking about Berezovsky who is known as an outstanding master of political intrigue. Litvinenko told me, that Berezovsky in fact sacked him by decreasing his salary threefold. Lately both Sasha and Berezovsky thought that the Office of the Russian Federation Procurator General and the British will come to an understanding and Berezovsky will be extradited to Russia.

In this connection I would like to tell you what Sasha had told Dmitry Kovtun not long before his death, when we met together in October of last year. During our dinner at one of the Chinatown restaurants in London, Litvinenko, enlarging on the subject of ways to make money, touched upon the resumed negotiations between Russia and the UK regarding Berezovsky's extradition. Lamenting the fact that Berezovsky did not appreciate the services rendered to him by Litvinenko, who allegedly saved his life more than once, Litvinenko told Kovtun, that he had the most important materials of a compromising nature, regarding the illegal activity of Berezovsky on the UK territory. If any part of the documents pertaining to the circumstances of his obtaining the refugee status were to be made public, then he (Berezovsky) would have huge problems. Litvinenko hinted to Dima, that especially now, when Russia raised an issue with the UK of extraditing Berezovsky, it would be very opportune to let Berezovsky know that such materials exist, and to put a value of several million dollars on them. Still being financially dependent on Berezovsky – Berezovsky was paying his son's tuition fees and the family's accommodation in London – Litvinenko asked Kovtun to find a reliable person, whom he would introduce to Berezovsky, which person would be able to familiarise Berezovsky with the materials, compromising him. Litvinenko was absolutely sure of the success of this enterprise, referring to the explosive nature and authenticity of the compromising materials that he possessed. Since the conversation took place when I left the table, Litvinenko asked Kovtun to keep that conversation between them, fearing that I, as a person who could contact Berezovsky at any point, would expose Litvinenko's idea to him.

Not willing to participate in all that even indirectly, not taking Litvinenko seriously, Kovtun and I decided it prudent to forget this conversation as soon as possible. However recalling now the details of my meetings with Litvinenko, his conviction

¶Part 5 | Chapters 1 to 8 | Alexander Litvinenko's final months

that the compromising materials he possessed could have fundamentally changed his (Litvinenko's) reduced financial circumstances, I can suppose that he did not abandon the idea of blackmailing Berezovsky which could have led to such lamentable consequences for him."¹⁹¹⁹ INQ017734 (page 4 paragraph 12) BER000167 INQ001886 (pages 5-6) Mascall 8/77 Tristam Burgess 21/172-213 Death of Dissident, pp.337-338

¶5.33 There is evidence that Mr Lugovoy, Mr Kovtun and Mr Litvinenko had dinner together

in a restaurant in Chinatown on 17 October 2006, and it would appear to have been that evening to which Mr Lugovoy was referring in his speech at the press conference.

¶5.34 About four years later, in a statement dated March 2011, Mr Lugovoy gave a slightly different account of this episode. He said this:20

"We, that is Mr Litvinenko, Mr Kovtun and I, had a meeting at 18.00 with RISC on 17 October 2007 [this is clearly a typo for 2006]. After the meeting at RISC, when we were walking back to the hotel, Mr Litvinenko was walking next to Mr Kovtun some distance ahead of me. I was speaking on my mobile phone. Whilst we were walking I could not hear what Mr Litvinenko was saying to Mr Kovtun. However, later that day Mr Kovtun told me that Mr Litvinenko resumed his complaint that Mr Berezovsky was not treating him fairly and that he simply could not survive on the money that Mr Berezovsky was paying to him. He said that he knew information regarding Mr Berezovsky that was worth a great deal of money. He said that he needed to find someone substantial and trustworthy who could sell this information without the source of the information coming back to himself.

I do not know why Mr Litvinenko said this to Mr Kovtun. One possibility may be that Mr Litvinenko thought that Mr Kovtun would tell me the content of this conversation and that perhaps I would tell Mr Berezovsky or Mr Patarkatsishvili (who would tell Mr Berezovsky) with the end result being that Mr Berezovsky would recognise the value/threat of the information held by Mr Litvinenko and therefore reward him accordingly (and return his monthly salary to its previous level of £5,000 and perhaps even increase it)."

¶5.35 I will have to make findings as to whether Mr Litvinenko did have a conversation along

these lines with Mr Kovtun on 17 October 2006 – either over dinner in Chinatown or as they walked away from the meeting at RISC. More importantly, I will have to make a finding as to whether Mr Berezovsky had any involvement in Mr Litvinenko's death. Those are matters that I will address in due course.

¶5.36 The accounts that Mr Lugovoy has given raise a straightforward factual issue upon

which, at least to an extent, his broader allegations of blackmail and complicity in murder all rest. That factual issue concerns Mr Litvinenko's reaction to the reduction in the payments that Mr Berezovsky was making to him that, as we have already seen, took place in early or mid 2006. What was Mr Litvinenko's reaction to the reduction in payments? Did the two men argue? Was Mr Litvinenko upset, and if so was he sufficiently upset to contemplate blackmailing his old friend?

¶5.37 I heard oral evidence from a number of those who were close to one or other of the

two men, and who were well placed to report on the state of relations between them. Their evidence can be summarised as follows.

¶The Litvinenko Inquiry

¶5.38 Marina Litvinenko said that she had seen the reduction in Mr Berezovsky's payments in

2006 as an opportunity for their family to reduce its dependence on him. She said that Mr Litvinenko had been "a little bit sad, emotional," but her view was that Mr Litvinenko was upset at the thought that Mr Berezovsky did not need him anymore, rather than financial issues. She was very clear that the underlying friendship between her husband and Mr Berezovsky had not been broken.21 She agreed with the proposition that Mr Litvinenko and Mr Berezovsky were close friends until Mr Litvinenko's death and added, "I knew these two people have been very special to each other."²²²² Sixsmith The Litvinenko File (pages 78-79); Cowell The Terminal Spy (pages 103-104) INQ019146 (page 25 paragraph 77) Marina Litvinenko 4/110-111 Marina Wall 32/75 Mascall 22/127 A1 2/131-140 When asked whether she knew anything about Mr Litvinenko blackmailing Mr Berezovsky in October 2006, she said:

"I don't believe it because I have no evidence during this time Sasha did like to blackmail Boris Berezovsky because particularly in October 2006, I didn't feel Sasha struggling about money and had any emotional problem at all."²³²³ Marina Litvinenko 3/31-35; INQ017734 (page 4 paragraph 13) Bukovsky 26/86-90; 26/109-110 Marina Litvinenko 4/11 lines 11-15 Marina Wall 32/66-67 Horwell 33/16-17 INQ016403 (page 30)

¶5.39 Mr Goldfarb's evidence on this issue was broadly consistent with that of Marina

Litvinenko. On the first occasion that he gave evidence, he said that he had not been aware of any rift between the two men. While Mr Litvinenko had been "a little grouchy" about the reduction in payments, he would not have described him as upset. He added that he would have expected Mr Litvinenko to have told him, "if he was really upset and thought it was unfair", but that he had never done so.24

¶5.40 When Mr Goldfarb returned to give evidence, he said that he did not even suspect that

Mr Berezovsky might have been responsible for Mr Litvinenko's death. Regarding the relationship between the two men, he said:

"There was, and it cannot be denied, some sort of a cooling off between them for a short period before Sasha was killed which was related to the reduction of his support, but… the support was reduced only marginally because Boris continued to pay for schooling and for the… house. And Sasha was naturally upset when his amount – the amount of money was reduced, but of course he expected that he would… be getting more money elsewhere, and he did not, so he was a little bit – financial strait, but it never, ever, would even occur to him to kind of confront Boris about that or accuse him of something, not to mention blackmail, no. So it's totally inconceivable."²⁵²⁵ INQ017734 (page 5 paragraph 15) Goldfarb 27/109-110 Goldfarb 26/2-8 Elenora Wall 32/79-80 INQ018946; INQ017548 (pages 8-9); Goldfarb 26/125-127

¶5.41 Mr Reilly's evidence on this issue was rather different. He recalled that there had

been "a big row" between Mr Litvinenko and Mr Berezovsky in the late summer of 2006, which had resulted in them not speaking to each other for a time. However, he said that the row was not about money, but about Mr Berezovsky's failure to follow some advice that Mr Litvinenko had given him (and about which Mr Litvinenko had subsequently been proved correct). He also said that the two men had been reconciled by October 2006 (that being the time at which Mr Lugovoy claimed that Mr Litvinenko was planning to blackmail Mr Berezovsky).26

¶5.42 Given the allegation of blackmail, it is also noteworthy that Mr Reilly immediately went on to describe Mr Litvinenko in the following terms:

¶Part 5 | Chapters 1 to 8 | Alexander Litvinenko's final months

"I don't think naturally as a man he was particularly acquisitive at all, really. I think sufficiency was… the way he was. He… was never expressing views about buying Ferraris or Rolex watches or anything like that but I would imagine, though, that that… may have been affected simply by the Western world…. He was beginning to understand, unfortunately, the importance of money in a Western economy, but he was not avaricious and he was not spending money will-nilly."²⁷²⁷ Marina Litvinenko 3/44 lines 19-20 Felshtinsky 23/136-137 Reilly 10/27-28 INQ006201 INQ014620; INQ014621

¶5.43 Like Mr Reilly, MrAttew understood that Mr Litvinenko had fallen out with Mr Berezovsky and then made up with him again in the period September to October 2006.28

¶5.44 Mr Tabunov, an acquaintance whom Mr Litvinenko met occasionally in central London,

had a slightly different understanding of the position. He remembered Mr Litvinenko telling him that he had had enough of Mr Berezovsky and no longer wanted anything to do with him. His memory was that Mr Litvinenko had said that he no longer wanted or needed any payments from Mr Berezovsky, he did not want to be dependent on him, and was frustrated because there were always too many people around Mr Berezovsky to talk in private. In contrast to the evidence given by Mr Attew and Mr Reilly, Mr Tabunov did not remember Mr Litvinenko mentioning a reconciliation; but the two met relatively rarely, and Mr Tabunov indicated that Mr Berezovsky was not in any event a regular topic of conversation.29

¶5.45 Mr Shvets' evidence was that Mr Litvinenko had called him in June or July 2006 and

told him that he had been "fired" by Mr Berezovsky, "because of some intrigues." Mr Shvets recalled Mr Litvinenko saying that he had had a stand up row with Mr Berezovsky, although he added that Litvinenko was an "emotional person" who would "explode immediately and start yelling at anybody… but then cool down five minutes later," and that he had been laughing when he recounted the episode to Mr Shvets. Although Mr Shvets said that Mr Litvinenko was not in the habit of bearing grudges for very long, he did not remember Mr Litvinenko ever telling him about any subsequent meetings or communications with Mr Berezovsky. He added, though, that he could not imagine Mr Litvinenko ever threatening Mr Berezovsky. He said, "They were so closely connected for many years that I can't imagine Sasha threatening Boris Berezovsky with anything."³⁰³⁰ BLK000253 (page 3) Goldfarb 5/122 Shvets 24/56-58 INQ006201 (page 15) INQ022423; INQ022433

¶5.46 Mr Bukovsky's memory was that Mr Litvinenko argued over politics and also practical

matters, in particular Mr Berezovsky's failure to accept Mr Litvinenko's advice on security matters. But he said that there had been no personal quarrel between the two men, and that the friendship between them had remained intact throughout.31

¶5.47 I also heard evidence on this point from two of Mr Berezovsky's employees –

¶Mr Voronkov, his office manager, and Mr Cotlick, Mr Berezovsky's personal assistant.

¶5.48 Mr Cotlick had been aware from discussions with Mr Litvinenko that his regular

payments had been cut, but said that this was not the type of matter that he would expect Mr Berezovsky to tell him about. As to Mr Litvinenko's reaction, he said: "I can't say that he was pleased with the fact that his salary was reduced, but nobody would probably. At the same time I have never heard from him a bad word about Mr Berezovsky." He said that neither Mr Berezovsky nor Mr Litvinenko had ever said

¶The Litvinenko Inquiry

anything to him about blackmail, nor was he aware of any other evidence to support the allegation against Mr Litvinenko. In his mind, the matter amounted to no more than press speculation.32

¶5.49 Mr Voronkov was unaware of any dispute between Mr Berezovsky and Mr Litvinenko,

although he said that he would not have expected Mr Berezovsky to discuss such matters with him. What he was able to say was that he did not notice any change in the way that the two men behaved towards one another during this period.33

¶5.50 In summary, I heard evidence on this issue from a wide range of those who were close

to Mr Litvinenko and Mr Berezovsky during the second half of 2006. It seems clear that the level of the regular payments to Mr Litvinenko was reduced, and there is good evidence that he was unhappy about this. There is also good evidence that there was some sort of row between the two men during this period, but much less evidence that the row was about the reduction in payments. Some of those who thought there had been a row also thought there had been a reconciliation. There was strong evidence that whatever row may have taken place, it had not affected the underlying friendship between Mr Litvinenko and Mr Berezovsky. None of the witnesses offered any support to the allegation that Mr Litvinenko either had been blackmailing Mr Berezovsky, or had been planning to do so.

¶5.51 I would add that both Mr Litvinenko and Mr Berezovsky left substantial quantities

of written evidence in the form of various witness statements and transcripts of interviews. None of this material supports the suggestion that there had been a serious rift between the two men in the months before Mr Litvinenko's death, or indeed at any time. For example, in a statement given to the Metropolitan Police Service after Mr Litvinenko's death, Mr Berezovsky stated that the two men had "continue[d] to have good relations" after Mr Litvinenko had stopped working for him.34 And there is nothing in the transcripts of Mr Litvinenko's interviews with Detective Inspector Hyatt to suggest that there had been a serious rift between him and Mr Berezovsky.

¶5.52 This brings me to the evidence of Julia Svetlichnaya.

¶5.53 The essential facts about Dr Svetlichnaya's contact with Mr Litvinenko are, I think,

uncontroversial. The evidence that Dr Svetlichnaya gave in this regard may be summarised as follows:

a. In 2006, Dr Svetlichnaya was a research student at the Centre for the Study of Democracy at Westminster University

b. One of the subjects of Dr Svetlichnaya's research was the issue of Chechen identity. She wished in that connection to interview Akhmed Zakayev

c. In order to arrange such an interview, Dr Svetlichnaya contacted Mr Berezovsky, whose phone number she had been given by a journalist. Mr Berezovsky said that he could not introduce her to Mr Zakayev, but he gave her contact details for Mr Litvinenko – who, he said, might introduce her to Mr Zakayev. Dr Svetlichnaya formed the impression that the intention was that Mr Litvinenko would vet her in order for a decision to be taken as to whether she should be allowed to interview Mr Zakayev

¶Part 5 | Chapters 1 to 8 | Alexander Litvinenko's final months

d. Dr Svetlichnaya made contact with Mr Litvinenko in late March or early April 2006. They subsequently met six or seven times between the end of April and the end of May. The meetings took place in various locations, including itsu in Piccadilly, Hyde Park, Mr Litvinenko's house and the Park Lane Hilton Hotel. Mr Zakayev was present at the last meeting35

¶5.54 There is one particular element of Dr Svetlichnaya's evidence that is of potential

relevance to the issue of blackmail. Dr Svetlichnya was taken through this part of her evidence with some care when she gave oral testimony at the Inquiry. What she told me, in summary, was that during the course of her meetings with Mr Litvinenko, he said that he had plans to take action against a group of wealthy Russians. The intention that he expressed appeared to be to obtain secret files relating to these individuals and then to blackmail them. Dr Svetlichnaya told me that this was a recurring theme of their conversations.36 She said that the expression used by Mr Litvinenko was that he would "force them to share", meaning their money – she also said that he mentioned blackmail, and that he also talked of selling sensitive information.37 She said Mr Litvinenko talked of his intention to demand payment of US$10,000 from each individual. Dr Svetlichnaya was asked what Mr Litvinenko had said about his intended targets and she replied, "I can just quote him: bastards, bastards from the Kremlin, bastards like Abramovich. That kind of person."³⁸³⁸ Marina Litvinenko 3/69 lines 22-23 Goldfarb 5/79-80 Svetlichnaya 25/103-104 Mascall 9/4-37 Dombey 23/54

¶5.55 I emphasise at this stage that I have taken into account only the evidence that Dr

Svetlichnaya gave to me orally. Although there are a number of newspaper articles in evidence that purport to give her account of her meetings with Mr Litvinenko, I have disregarded them as it became clear when she gave evidence before me that those articles misrepresent her account in significant respects.

¶5.56 The view that I have taken is that Dr Svetlichnaya's evidence does not assist me in

reaching my conclusions about Mr Litvinenko's death. I have taken that view for the following reasons.

¶5.57 First, the principal allegation that has been raised – by Mr Lugovoy – is that

Mr Litvinenko may have been blackmailing Mr Berezovsky. Dr Svetlichnaya did not say that Mr Litvinenko mentioned Mr Berezovsky as one of the intended targets of his "force to share" plans, and moreover the description of his intended targets that he did give to Dr Svetlichnaya – "bastards from the Kremlin" – would not appear to have included Mr Berezovsky.

¶5.58 Second, although on Dr Svetlichnaya's account Mr Litvinenko was clearly describing

some sort of blackmail plans, those plans would appear still to have been at an early stage only weeks before he became ill. Dr Svetlichnaya did not suggest that Mr Litvinenko told her that he had actually implemented any of these plans, or that he had even started to implement them.

100

¶The Litvinenko Inquiry