The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
Chapter 6: Private security work
4.101 Mr Litvinenko was not, on the evidence that I have heard, readily employable following
his arrival in the UK. His English was poor and the skills that he had developed over
20 years in the FSB and before that the KGB were highly specialised. In the early
years, it would appear that Mr Berezovsky funded the family more or less entirely. He
provided accommodation, paid for Anatoly’s school fees and made regular payments
to Mr Litvinenko, for example, for his work on the two books. Mr Berezovsky was,
however, keen that Mr Litvinenko should become more self sufficient. As we shall
hear, he encouraged Mr Litvinenko to try to obtain other work. He also cut the level of
payments that he made to the Litvinenko family.
4.102 I shall return to this point in due course because it relates to the question of whether
there was a falling out between the two men in mid 2006, and if so whether this could
be relevant in any way to Mr Litvinenko’s death.
4.103 The important point for present purposes is that in 2005 and 2006, in part no doubt
due to Mr Berezovsky’s encouragement and the reducing payments, Mr Litvinenko
appears to have started undertaking more work in what might loosely be described
as the private security field.
4.104 Some of the work that Mr Litvinenko undertook in this field involved the preparation
of so called ‘due diligence’ reports. I heard that these reports were at the time (and,
no doubt, continue to be) routinely commissioned by one company or businessman
seeking to find out more information about another company or businessman. Such
reports were often obtained at an early stage of a proposed transaction. I heard that
such reports might be sought because of a genuine wish to find out more information
about the target, but might also serve a more formal compliance purpose. Either way,
a negative report might lead to a proposed transaction being cancelled.
4.105 The evidence I heard was that in the period 2005-6, there was a strong demand in
London for ‘due diligence’ reports to be prepared on Russian targets. As we shall
see, Mr Litvinenko sought to establish himself as someone who could provide such
reports, using both his own knowledge and his contacts in their preparation.
4.106 Could it be that Mr Litvinenko’s death was connected in some way to the work that he
undertook in this sphere? Is it possible that a disgruntled subject of a negative report
prepared by Mr Litvinenko might have wished to punish him? Or might Mr Litvinenko’s
need to establish a network of sources in order to assist with this work have drawn
him into the company of people who wished him ill for other reasons?
4.107 I heard evidence that there were three private security companies with which
Mr Litvinenko became involved in this period. They were RISC Management Limited,
Titon International Limited and Erinys UK Limited. I propose to review the evidence
relating to each in turn.
RISC
4.108 RISC Management Limited (RISC) was a private security company that had grown
out of an earlier business named ISC Global. I heard evidence from Keith Hunter, who
was CEO of RISC in the period 2005–6. 98 He explained that ISC had been set up in
98
Hunter 11/1-47
74