The Litvinenko Inquiry

“Basically, they prepared a report on the group who was trying to take over our
assets illegally. They identified two people from – one from police department and
another from the prosecution office who were providing protection to this group,
and also they identified their high profile connections as well.
They submitted this report, and that was the only result of their work on the
project.” 108
Dr Shadrin thought that Mr Lugovoy’s bill for preparing the report had been paid by
July 2006. 109
6.122 This outline raises a question as to the subject matter of the meetings that Mr Lugovoy
and Mr Kovtun had with Dr Shadrin in the autumn of 2006. If the Livshitz affair had
effectively been concluded, what were they discussing?
6.123 Dr Shadrin was asked about this when he gave evidence. Putting the matter shortly,
his response was that by the autumn of 2006 Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun were
pitching for new business. He recalled the letter of introduction being provided to
support Mr Kovtun’s visa application, and said that Mr Balfour had provided the letter
to facilitate discussions with Mr Kovtun about his possible future involvement with
CPL. As Dr Shadrin put it, as at 3 October 2006, which was the date of the letter,
“it would be accurate to say that [Mr Kovtun was] pitching to provide consultant
services… because at that time obviously their previous role… has been finalised and
the new role, we haven’t negotiated out.” He further stressed that he did not regard his
discussions with Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun at that time as a matter of any urgency. 110
6.124 With regard to his meetings with Mr Kovtun and Mr Lugovoy on 16 and 17 October
2006, Dr Shadrin recalled that they had discussed two possible future projects. One
related to further investigation/surveillance of Mr Livshitz and his group and the other
concerned the possibility that Mr Lugovoy’s company might be awarded a contract to
provide physical security at the sites in Siberia once drilling began, possibly as a joint
venture with security firms in the UK. He said that Mr Lugovoy also sought his advice
on raising finance for other unrelated business projects, including one relating to the
bottling company with which he was involved. Dr Shadrin also stated that, given their
possible future working relationship, he asked Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun to provide
copies of formal documents required under the Know Your Client protocols. 111
6.125 The statement that Mr Kovtun provided to the Inquiry dated 2 June 2015 112 gives a
rather different account of his engagement with Dr Shadrin at this time. That statement
gives the clear impression that the investigation into the Livshitz group was then still
underway. More than that, the statement suggests that one of the purposes of his trip
to London on 16 October 2006 was to discuss with Dr Shadrin a particular piece of
information that Mr Kovtun claimed to have discovered, namely that members of the
Livshitz group had been hacking the emails of an American company named Harvest
and Hicks, in particular those of a senior manager named Mr Byron.
6.126 Dr Shadrin had by this stage already given oral evidence to the Inquiry and he
addressed these points in a further written statement dated 24 June 2015. 113 Put
108
Shadrin 14/154-155
109
Shadrin 14/168
110
Shadrin 14/170-171
111
Shadrin 14/176-182
112
INQ021208
113
INQ022384
Part 6 | Chapters 1 to 8 | The polonium trail – events in October and November 2006
135