The Litvinenko Inquiry

6.61 In further contrast to Mr Lugovoy’s application, Mr Kovtun applied for a business
visa. Mr Kovtun described himself in his application form as the general director of
a Russian company named Global Project Ltd and asserted that he had a monthly
income of 65,000 roubles. He named a British company called Continental Petroleum
Ltd (CPL) as his contact in the UK, and attached to his form a letter from the Chairman
of CPL, named Mr Balfour, which was addressed to the British Embassy in Moscow. 35
In his letter Mr Balfour requested that Mr Kovtun be granted an entry visa. The letter
confirmed that Global Project Ltd had been founded in 2003 and that Mr Kovtun
had been general director of the company since 5 December 2003. It added that,
“the company provides consulting services in development of Russian oil and gas
markets.”
6.62 The contents of Mr Kovtun’s visa application form and the letter from Mr Balfour
raise for the first time a number of related issues concerning Mr Kovtun. Was his
supposed successful business career in Russia genuine? Did he work with CPL?
Did he have genuine business reasons for travelling to London in October and early
November 2006?
6.63 I heard evidence from a number of witnesses on these matters which I will detail in
due course. It may, however, assist if at this stage I identify the issues in a little more
detail and give some preliminary views in relation to them:
a. There is no evidence, other than that emanating from Mr Lugovoy and from
Mr Kovtun himself, that Mr Kovtun was a wealthy and successful businessman in
2006. As I have explained in some detail above, at paragraphs 6.35 – 6.40, the
evidence of Inna Hohne and of Marina and Elenora Wall was strongly inconsistent
with such a suggestion. Further, as we shall see, it is a striking feature of the
evidence relating to his activities in October and November 2006 that Mr Kovtun
did not appear to live the lifestyle of a rich businessman. He did not pay for drinks
or meals in London, and the evidence is that he had to ask his ex-wife’s boyfriend
to pay for his flight from Hamburg to London because he did not have a credit
card
b. There is, on the other hand, plenty of evidence to demonstrate the existence
of a business relationship between CPL and Mr Lugovoy. Witnesses such as
Dr Shadrin and Mr Voronoff, to whom I shall return, attested to this
c. It was also apparent from the evidence of these and other witnesses that
Mr Lugovoy drew Mr Kovtun into his work with CPL. I shall return to the detail of
this evidence in due course
d. Perhaps the most important issue in this regard is whether Mr Kovtun’s business
dealings with CPL (or for that matter any other companies) provide a sufficient
explanation for his two trips to London in October and November 2006. On
this issue, as we shall see, there are discrepancies between the evidence of
Mr Kovtun on the one hand and Dr Shadrin on the other
6.64 Another notable feature of Mr Kovtun’s visa application was its timing in relation to
other events. As Mr Horwell QC observed in his closing submissions, 36 it is striking that
the bookings for Mr Lugovoy’s and Mr Kovtun’s flights to London on 16 October and
the bookings for their hotel rooms on that trip were made a few days after Mr Kovtun’s
35
INQ006218 (page 15)
36
Horwell 33/24
Part 6 | Chapters 1 to 8 | The polonium trail – events in October and November 2006
119