MOSCOW, May 27 (RIA Novosti) - The trial over the case of YUKOS ex-head Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Menatep boss Platon Lebedev and Volna director-general Andrey Krainov in Moscow's Meshchansky court has been deferred until May 30, Monday, reports RIA from the scene of the trial.
According to the Canadian lawyer Robert Amsterdam, 11 months have passed without hearing any statement from the defense. These men (Khodorkovsky and Lebedev) will spend another Sunday in the cage, said Amsterdam. He also believes that the judgement being read out is illogical, to say nothing of the fact that there are no grounds for making an intermission until Monday.
After the statement of motivation is made public, the court will pass over to findings which are to contain sentence terms.
The guilt of the defendants has been found substantiated, with the exclusion of Apatite.
The prosecutor-general's office had previously asked the court to turn out a verdict of guilty concerning this episode but to free the defendants of any relevant punishment for the expiry of the limitation period.
The prosecution party charges Khodorkovsky with misappropriating 20 percent of Apatite share-holdings, as a member of an organized group, though companies under his control. In the meantime, alleges the prosecutor-general's office, the Volna company used hoax to win an investment competition for the purchase of shares, which involved three other enterprises (Intermedinvest, Malakhit and Flora) under the Khodorkovsky and Lebedev sway. The latter three, according to the prosecution party, had offered astronomical bids in the investment competition but later backed out of it.
The defense of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev has already declared its intention to appeal against the Meshchansky court sentence.
Lawyer Helen Liptser representing the interests of Platon Lebedev has confirmed this fact in an interview to journalists. "We cannot specify now the arguments we are going to place in this appeal. They will be made public after the completion of the judgment reading-out," added the lawyer.
Liptser referred to the judgment being read in the Meschansky court as a frame-up.
"We again don't see any reflection of the defense stand in this judgment. What was the need of writing out this judgment if the initial indictment could easily replace it?" concluded the lawyer.
