The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
2005, but he also said that the meeting had coincided with his trip to London to watch
CSKA Moscow play Chelsea. 144 There is evidence before the Inquiry that CSKA
Moscow played Chelsea in London on 20 October 2004; there were no matches
between the two teams in 2005 – nor were there any matches between Chelsea and
Spartak in either year. 145 It therefore appears very likely that Mr Litvinenko’s account
was accurate and that the two men first met in London in October 2004.
4.150 There is also a divergence between the accounts of the two men as to how the
meeting was arranged. Mr Litvinenko told DI Hyatt that Mr Lugovoy contacted him
and suggested that they meet. Mr Lugovoy, on the other hand, stated in the witness
statement to which I have referred above that Mr Litvinenko had contacted him and
asked to meet. Since this was the occasion on which the relationship between the two
men was renewed, the question of who initiated the process is of some importance. I
will return to this question in Part 9 below.
4.151 Following that meeting Mr Litvinenko drew Mr Lugovoy into his business activities,
often describing him as his ‘Moscow contact’. On the evidence that I have heard,
the first occasion on which Mr Litvinenko took Mr Lugovoy to a business meeting
in London was the meeting with Mr Evans in late 2005. That was followed by the
meeting with Mr Quirke and Mr Knuckey in April/May 2006, then the meetings with
Mr Attew and Mr Reilly, and the further meeting with Mr Quirke, later in the year. Marina
Litvinenko gave evidence that she recalled meeting Mr Lugovoy at Mr Berezovsky’s
60th birthday party, held at Blenheim Palace in January 2006. She also recalled that
Mr Lugovoy and his wife had visited Mr Litvinenko at their home in north London
during July 2006, whilst she and Anatoly were away on holiday. 146
4.152 As I have explained above, neither Mr Knuckey and Mr Quirke, nor Mr Attew, were
at all impressed by the due diligence reports compiled by Mr Lugovoy. Mr Attew also
stated that he took a strong personal dislike to Mr Lugovoy when he met him with
Mr Litvinenko at Heathrow Airport in June 2006. Mr Attew’s evidence was that, on
meeting Mr Lugovoy, he disliked and distrusted him. He added:
“I have met many different people from many different countries, and you on
occasions meet people that worry you, concern you, scare you, and in this instance,
there was something I would describe as cold, scarily cold about Lugovoy. It wasn’t
that I felt frightened; it wasn’t that I felt in harm’s way in any way. I just didn’t like
the characteristics of the individual or the profile that was sitting in front of me.” 147
Mr Attew also stated that he returned to the Erinys/Titon offices after meeting
Mr Lugovoy and recounted his experience to Mr Holmes and Mr Reilly. He also
advised his colleagues that they should not allow Mr Lugovoy into the offices and,
more importantly, that they should not do any business with him. 148 As I have explained,
Mr Reilly ignored both pieces of advice.
4.153 But it is striking that Mr Litvinenko appears to have had a very different opinion
of Mr Lugovoy to that of Mr Attew. Mr Attew told me that Mr Litvinenko described
Mr Lugovoy to him as “a good friend.” 149 Mr Quirke’s evidence was that Mr Litvinenko
described Mr Lugovoy to him as “someone… that he trusted and who was in Russia
144
INQ001788 (page 15 paragraph 86)
145
INQ022396; INQ022397
146
Marina Litvinenko 4/14-17
147
Attew 13/85-86
148
Attew 13/47
149
Attew 13/45
82