The Litvinenko Inquiry

Part 9 | Chapters 1 to 12 | Who directed the killing?
a further document dated 17 September 2006, 27 which records FSB orders relating
to the delivery to Mr Potemkin of material described only as ‘Chemistry’, as well as
documents and currency. On the document, the purpose of this delivery is stated to
be: “for carrying out further activities related to investigation, possible neutralization
and return to RF of certain members of Chechen ethnic criminal groups in position
Austria”. The document further states that; “further instructions related to the material
“Chemistry” will be given to [Mr Potemkin] via existing channels of communication”.
Mr Potemkin told Mr Goldfarb that he received his further orders to put the container
in a locker at the railway station through “communication channels”.
9.83 In his witness statement dated 20 May 2013, 28 Mr Goldfarb stated that he had stayed
in touch with Mr Potemkin since 2010 in order to facilitate meetings with the police
and also with a journalist. He also referred to the fact that Mr Potemkin had recently
been convicted in Austria for fraud; he reported the explanation that Mr Potemkin had
given him for this conviction, namely that he had in effect been set up by the FSB.
9.84 In the same statement, Mr Goldfarb recorded his own views as to the reliability of the
account that Mr Potemkin had given. He said this:
“While I felt obliged to report Potemkin’s story to the police, I am of two minds
about his credibility. On the one hand, his story is too sophisticated, elaborate and
detailed to be a simpleminded hoax. On a more personal level, he left a positive
impression, both on me and on two seasoned journalists that I brought to interview
him. On the other hand, there are inconsistencies in his story, which he could
never explain, and the documents that he provided, raised many questions. With
the revelation of the Austrian fraud case, I became even more doubtful whether
Potemkin should be believed. I defer final judgment to the police.”
9.85 In his oral evidence to me at the Inquiry hearings, Mr Goldfarb adopted very much the
same line. He said that the story “may be true, it may be false”. He added that he had
reservations stemming both from inconsistencies in Mr Potemkin’s account and from
the fraud conviction. 29
9.86 I have reached the clear view that I should not place any weight on the evidence
emanating from Mr Potemkin. Put very briefly, the uncertainties both about the
substance of his evidence and about his credibility are so great that the only proper
course I can take is to disregard this material in its entirety. My more detailed reasons
are as follows.
9.87 First, there are real doubts about Mr Potemkin’s credibility. He is, on his own account,
both a man who has spent years working as an undercover agent informing on those
around him, and also a man who has more recently betrayed his own organisation.
This is not a promising starting point, and the position has been compounded by
Mr Potemkin’s conviction on fraud charges. It does not follow from any of these
matters, of course, that the story Mr Potemkin told Mr Goldfarb is untruthful. But, given
this context, I am bound to approach Mr Potemkin’s evidence with great caution. It
does not assist in this respect that I have not heard him give evidence, and am not
therefore in a position to form an independent view of his reliability.
27
INQ014620; INQ014621
28
INQ017548 (pages 8-9)
29
Goldfarb 26/125-127
221