The Litvinenko Inquiry

Part 4 | Chapters 1 to 6 | Why would anyone wish to kill Alexander Litvinenko?
Chapter 3: Work for UK intelligence agencies
4.57 Ever since Mr Litvinenko died, there has been speculation that he may have worked
for the UK intelligence agencies. MI6 is the agency most commonly suggested. As
we shall see, such speculation was in part the result of public comments made by
Mr Lugovoy. I heard evidence on this topic from a number of witnesses.
4.58 Before turning to that evidence, I observe that the questions this issue raises with
regard to the matters that I am investigating are more complex than the binary question
of whether or not Mr Litvinenko was working for the agencies. In terms of the risks
that Mr Litvinenko may have faced, the detail is critical. If Mr Litvinenko did work for
the agencies, what type of work did he undertake? What information may he have
passed? What (and whose) secrets may he have betrayed? What may have been the
consequences? More fundamentally, the question of what Mr Litvinenko was or was
not actually doing may be less important than that of what his enemies thought he
was doing. For if there was a distinction between the two, Mr Litvinenko was unlikely
to have received the benefit of it.
4.59 Marina Litvinenko answered questions about this issue in her oral evidence. 59 Her
evidence can be summarised as follows:
a. She knew that Mr Litvinenko undertook work for one of the agencies – she was
unsure whether it was MI5 or MI6. Mr Litvinenko had told her about this work. She
was also aware of monthly payments being made into their joint bank account
that she understood was payment for Mr Litvinenko’s work with the agencies
b. This work had started after Mr Litvinenko’s arrival in the UK. She did not believe
that Mr Litvinenko had had any involvement with UK agencies while he was still
living in Russia
c. She stated that Mr Litvinenko had shared with her some of the information he
was supplying to British intelligence, “but not the details”. She believed that the
information Mr Litvinenko gave to the agencies related to Russian organised
crime, including its presence in the UK. But, as I have said, she did not know the
details of what Mr Litvinenko had been doing. She had no idea, for example, as
to the accuracy or otherwise of an allegation that he had passed the names of
Russian sleeper agents in the UK to UK intelligence agencies
d. Mr Litvinenko received a payment of £2,000 per month for this work. The payments
had started in about 2004 and were made into the joint bank account that Mr and
Mrs Litvinenko shared
e. Her understanding was that Mr Litvinenko had worked for the agencies on a
consulting basis, as opposed to being one of their employees or agents (terms
that she regarded as synonymous). To her, this was an important distinction.
This was the explanation for a statement that she had given to the press in 2007
asserting that Mr Litvinenko, “was never an agent for MI6” – she did not believe
that he had been an ‘agent’, as opposed to a consultant. As she put it, “I knew
Sasha did work for MI6, or MI5, but he has never been an agent of MI6.” She had
earlier explained that she understood the term ‘agent’ to mean: “work[ing] with
the Security Service and doing undercover job, doing something abroad under
position of agent of MI6… But more important it’s be employed, employed.”
59
Marina Litvinenko 3/146-155; 4/119-120
63