The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
Chapter 5: The Ivanov report
5.59 I observed at paragraphs 4.137 and 4.138 above that there was no particular reason
to think that Mr Litvinenko’s role in providing sensitive and damaging information in
due diligence reports ever became known either to those who received the reports
or to those who were affected by them. That was because it was standard practice
in the security industry to preserve the anonymity of sources such as Mr Litvinenko.
It followed that – again, in general terms – there was no reason to think that the
due diligence reports that Mr Litvinenko provided for the security companies in 2006
played any part in his death.
5.60 On the evidence that I have heard, however, there was one of Mr Litvinenko’s reports
to which this reasoning did not, or at least did not necessarily, apply.
5.61 The report in question was one of the reports that Mr Litvinenko and Mr Shvets
prepared for Mr Attew. The subject of the report was a Russian politician and close
ally of Mr Putin named Viktor Ivanov.
5.62 The basic facts relating to this report appear, from the evidence before me, to be as
follows:
a. The Ivanov report was one of a series of reports commissioned from Mr Litvinenko
by Mr Attew in about August or September 2006. Mr Attew was unable to
remember whether or not the report was the first that he had commissioned from
Mr Litvinenko 39
b. Mr Litvinenko initially gave Mr Attew a report on Mr Ivanov that was only a third
of a page long. Mr Attew considered the report to be far below the standard he
expected, and told Mr Litvinenko so. Mr Litvinenko told Mr Attew that the report
had been drafted for him by Mr Lugovoy 40
c. Mr Litvinenko then asked Mr Shvets to draft a report on Mr Ivanov. In response,
Mr Shvets drafted an eight-page report. Some of the content of the report was
information that Mr Shvets had been told by Mr Litvinenko 41
d. Mr Shvets completed the report and emailed it to Mr Litvinenko on 19 September
2006 42
e. A copy of the report is in evidence before me. 43 The report contains detailed and
serious criticism both of Mr Ivanov and (as Mr Shvets observed) of Mr Putin. 44
Mr Attew described the report as “extremely damaging”. 45 In summary:
(i)
The report details Mr Ivanov’s early career in the Committee for State Security
(KGB). It notes that he served in Afghanistan and in the human resources
department, and asserts that these postings indicate that he was considered
to be an underachiever and a “failure”
39
Attew 13/25-27
40
Attew 13/27-28
41
Shvets 24/65
42
Shvets 24/72
43
INQ006481
44
Shvets 24/81-82
45
Attew 13/37
100