National Crime Agency v Baker & Ors [2020] EWHC 822 (Admin)

“Overview of the Act 1. The Criminal Finances Act 2017 makes the legislative changes necessary to give law enforcement agencies and partners new capabilities and powers to recover the proceeds of crime, and to tackle money laundering, corruption and terrorist financing. 2. The measures in the Act aim to: improve cooperation between public and private sectors; enhance the UK law enforcement response; improve our capability to recover the proceeds of crime, including international corruption; and combat the financing of terrorism. …... Unexplained wealth orders 12. The Act creates unexplained wealth orders (UWOs) that require a person who is suspected of involvement in or association with serious criminality to explain the origin of assets that appear to be disproportionate to their known income. A failure to provide a full response would give rise to a presumption that the property was recoverable, in order to assist any subsequent civil recovery action. A person could also be convicted of a criminal offence, if they make false or misleading statements in response to a UWO. Law enforcement agencies often have reasonable grounds to suspect that identified assets of such persons are the proceeds of serious crime. However, they are often unable to freeze or recover the assets under the previous provisions in POCA due to an inability to obtain evidence (often due to the inability to rely on full cooperation from other jurisdictions to obtain evidence). 13. The Act also allows for this power to be applied to politicians or officials from outside the European Economic Area (EEA), or those associated with them i.e. Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs). A UWO made in relation to a nonEEA PEP would not require suspicion of serious criminality. This measure reflects the concern about those involved in corruption overseas, laundering the proceeds of crime in the UK; and the fact that it may be difficult for law enforcement agencies to satisfy the evidential standard at the outset of an investigation given that all relevant information may be outside of the jurisdiction.”

“(1) The High Court may, on an application made by an enforcement authority, make an unexplained wealth order in respect of any property if the court is satisfied that each of the requirements for the making of the order is fulfilled.”

“(1) These are the requirements for the making of an unexplained wealth order in respect of any property. (2) The High Court must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that - (a) the respondent holds the property, and (b) the value of the property is greater than £50,000. (3) The High Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the known sources of the respondent’s lawfully obtained income would have been insufficient for the purposes of enabling the respondent to obtain the property. (4) The High Court must be satisfied that - (a) the respondent is a politically exposed person, or (b) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that— (i) the respondent is, or has been, involved in serious crime (whether in a part of the United Kingdom or elsewhere), or (ii) a person connected with the respondent is, or has been, so involved. … (7) In subsection (4)(a), ‘politically exposed person’ means a person who is - (a) an individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international organisation or by a State other than the United Kingdom or another EEA State, … (8) Article 3 of Directive 2015/849/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 applies for the purposes of determining - (a) whether a person has been entrusted with prominent public functions (see point (9) of that Article), (b) whether a person is a family member (see point (10) of that Article), and (c) whether a person is known to be a close associate of another (see point (11) of that Article).” (a) the respondent holds the property, and (b) the value of the property is greater than £50,000. (a) the respondent is a politically exposed person, or (b) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that— (i) the respondent is, or has been, involved in serious crime (whether in a part of the United Kingdom or elsewhere), or (ii) a person connected with the respondent is, or has been, so involved. (a) an individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international organisation or by a State other than the United Kingdom or another EEA State, (a) whether a person has been entrusted with prominent public functions (see point (9) of that Article), (b) whether a person is a family member (see point (10) of that Article), and (c) whether a person is known to be a close associate of another (see point (11) of that Article).”

“Reasonable grounds for believing a primary fact, such as that the person under investigation has benefited from his criminal conduct, or has committed a money laundering offence, do not involve proving that he has done such a thing, whether to the criminal or civil standard of proof. The test is concerned not with proof but the existence of grounds (reasons) for believing (thinking) something, and with the reasonableness of those grounds. Debate about the standard of proof required, such as was to some extend conducted in the courts below, is inappropriate because the test does not ask for the primary fact to be proved. It only asks for the Applicant to show that it is believed to exist, and that there are objectively reasonable grounds for that belief.”

“In my judgment… it is clear that the judge personally must be satisfied that the statutory requirements have been established. He is not simply asking himself whether the decision of the constable making the application was reasonable, nor whether it would be susceptible to judicial review on Wednesbury grounds (see Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corpn [1948] 1 KB 223). This follows from the express wording of the statute, “If … a circuit judge is satisfied that one … of the sets of access conditions is fulfilled”

“In my judgment it is…clear that the constable making the application must satisfy the judge that the relevant set of conditions is established. This appears to follow as an elementary result of the fact that an order will force or oblige the individual against whom it is made to act under compulsion when, without the order, he would be free to do otherwise. Again, if authority is required, I refer to the reasoning of Lord Diplock in R v Inland Revenue Comrs, Ex p Rossminster Ltd [1980] AC 952 where he said “the onus would be upon the officer to satisfy the court that there did in fact exist reasonable grounds.”

“Section 362H provides a broad definition of how an individual may ‘hold’ property, for the purposes of sections 362A and 362B. The definition is specifically broad enough to address circumstances where property is held in trust or owned in a complex corporate structure arrangement.”

“A person is to be taken to have “effective control” over property if, from all the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the person – (a) exercises, (b) is able to exercise, or (c) is entitled to acquire, direct or indirect control over the property.” direct or indirect control over the property.”

“For the purposes of section 1122 “trustee”, in the case of a settlement in relation to which there would be no trustees apart from this subsection, means any person – (a)in whom the property comprised in the settlement is for the time being vested, or (b)in whom the management of that property is for the time being vested.”

“Suspicion in its ordinary meaning is a state of conjecture or surmise where proof is lacking: “I suspect but I cannot prove”

“(6) A person, in the capacity as trustee of a settlement, is connected with— (a) any individual who is a settlor in relation to the settlement, (b) any person connected with such an individual, …..” (a) any individual who is a settlor in relation to the settlement, (b) any person connected with such an individual, …..”

“(1) For the purposes of this Part, a person has been involved in serious crime in England and Wales if he– (a) has committed a serious offence in England and Wales; (b) has facilitated the commission by another person of a serious offence in England and Wales; or (c) has conducted himself in a way that was likely to facilitate the commission by himself or another person of a serious offence in England and Wales (whether or not such an offence was committed). (2) In this Part “a serious offence in England and Wales” means an offence under the law of England and Wales which, at the time when the court is considering the application or matter in question– (a) is specified, or falls within a description specified, in Part 1 of Schedule 1; or (b) is one which, in the particular circumstances of the case, the court considers to be sufficiently serious to be treated for the purposes of the application or matter as if it were so specified.” (a) has committed a serious offence in England and Wales; (b) has facilitated the commission by another person of a serious offence in England and Wales; or (c) has conducted himself in a way that was likely to facilitate the commission by himself or another person of a serious offence in England and Wales (whether or not such an offence was committed). (a) is specified, or falls within a description specified, in Part 1 of Schedule 1; or (b) is one which, in the particular circumstances of the case, the court considers to be sufficiently serious to be treated for the purposes of the application or matter as if it were so specified.”

“46. Actus reus : In the context of the varying types of criminal trafficking at which these provisions are aimed, the two words ‘arranging’ and ‘facilitating’ travel are necessarily broad and should be construed accordingly. ‘Arranging’ is a common word which in our view needs no further explanation to the jury. ‘Arranging’ would include such matters as transporting B, procuring a third person to transport B, or buying a ticket for B. ‘Facilitating’ is intended to be different from “arranging” and would include “making easier”

“176. A UWO provides law enforcement with a tool to obtain information and documentation in relation to property that appears to be disproportionate to the known income of an individual or company. A fundamental aim of the power, therefore, is to access evidence that would otherwise not be available. Although not an absolute requirement, the applicant should consider whether alternative tools of investigation could be used in obtaining any relevant documents and information.”

“21. The right to respect for private and family life and the protection of property under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is safeguarded by the Human Rights Act 1998. The powers of investigation may involve significant interference with the privacy and property of those whose premises are searched, on whom personal information is obtained, or whose personal information, material or documents are seen and/or seized. The powers therefore need to be fully and clearly justified before they are used. The use of the powers which impact upon individuals’ rights should be proportionate to the outcome being sought. In particular, those exercising the powers should consider at every stage whether the necessary objectives can be achieved by less intrusive means ….”

“120. I suspect that, whilst alive, Rakhat Aliyev was involved in serious crime during public office and subsequently. 121. I also suspect that, whilst Rakhat Aliyev was alive and/or after his death, members of the Aliyev family have been involved in laundering the proceeds of his unlawful conduct through the acquisition and handling of assets.”

“11. As identified in paragraphs 24-25 and 56-57 of the core statement, Property 1 was: (1) purchased on 2 April 2008 for £9.3 million and registered in the name of Twingold Holding (a BVI company); (2) subsequently transferred to the Panamanian registered Villa Magna Foundation on 25 March 2013. 12. At the time of writing this statement, Villa Magna Foundation remains the registered proprietor of Property 1. ….. 26. The NCA’s primary position is that there are no ‘known’ sources of Mr Baker’s income as President of the Foundation Council and there are no known sources of the Villa Magna’s income …Given the extremely secretive nature of Panamanian Private Interest Foundations, there is no publicly available information about the funds which have been applied to Villa Magna Foundation since it was established (other than the minimum starting capital of US$10,000)…. 27. In any event, whilst the sources of Mr Baker’s income as President of the Council and the sources of Villa Magna Foundation’s income are not ‘known’, I strongly suspect that any sources of income are likely to have arisen from Rakhat Aliyev and/or members of his family (whether directly or indirectly), and are unlikely to have been lawfully obtained: 27.1 I believe that Rakhat Aliyev was the ultimate Founder of Villa Magna Foundation (whether acting personally or through another): (1) …there are strong links between Property 1 and the Aliyev family both before and after Villa Magna Foundation was established including: (a) The property has been given as an address to Harrods for accounts held by Rakhat Aliyev’s ex-wife and daughter. (b) Individuals associated to Rakhat Aliyev are linked to Property 1. For example, Mr Kurmanbayev was an attorney and ‘officer’ of Twingold Holding (the company which initially purchased Property 1 in April 2008). Mr Enry was the liquidator and attorney of Twingold Holding when transferring the property to Villa Magna Foundation, and was also appointed as President of the Foundation. Mr Dall’Osso has been the sole director of Parkview Estates (the ‘care of’ address for Villa Magna Foundation) and was the sole director of Equipe Real Estate (the company named on the utility accounts for Property 1). (c) Property 1 has also been obtained and handled in a similar manner to Properties 2 and 3 (both of which have further links to the Aliyev family). For example, the properties were all transferred by BVI companies to offshore foundations in March 2013, within 4 days of each other. (2) As identified in paragraph 139 of the core statement, I believe that Rakhat Aliyev had a propensity to place assets in the names of others. (3) I have not identified any other person who is more likely to have been the Founder at this stage. Whilst I acknowledge the possibility that the Founder may have been Nurali Aliyev (e.g. given his known associations with Mr Kurmanbayev), I note that the property was initially purchased in April 2008, at a time when Nurali Aliyev was 23 years old and had only recently completed his studies. I believe that it is more likely at this stage that his father, Rakhat Aliyev, was the Founder. 27.2 As Founder of Villa Magna Foundation, I believe that Rakhat Aliyev would have been responsible for providing funds to the Foundation prior to his death. 27.3 For the reasons identified at paragraphs 120 – 136 of the core statement, I suspect that any income originating from Rakhat Aliyev is likely to have been unlawfully obtained. I also suspect that members of his family have been involved in laundering the proceeds of his unlawful conduct. 27.4 Finally, and significantly, my suspicions above are strengthened by the complex and secretive manner in which Property 1 has been obtained and handled. It was initially purchased outright for a significant sum of money, by a BVI company incorporated shortly before the purchase. Ownership of the property was transferred in March 2013, in circumstances which were extremely similar to two other UK properties of significant value, namely Properties 2 and 3. Ownership was transferred to a Panamanian Private Interest Foundation, an entity which is subject to strict secrecy laws. The ‘care of’ address in the UK was identified (to HM Land Registry) as a corporate entity (namely Parkview Estates). It appears that the day-to-day management of the property has been handled by property management companies. The President of Villa Magna Foundation, Mr Enry, refused to identify the beneficial owner when asked by Global Witness and resigned as President two months after the Global Witness report was published.”

“3. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 3.1 We have addressed in this section certain material facts which provide essential context for the proper consideration of our representations and which inform the basis upon which we submit that the NCA's application for the Orders was flawed. 3.2 We note that some of the following material was referenced in your application for the Orders and we accept that some of the information in this section may not have been available to you at the time of your application. Regrettably, however, many of the most material facts appear to have been simply overlooked by the NCA and certainly were not drawn to the attention of the learned Judge in the course of your application. DN’s marriage to RA 3.3 DN and RA were married between 7 October 1983 and 6 June 2007. DN was and has been independently economically active. Each of the three properties which are the subject of the Orders were purchased after DN and RA divorced. 3.4 Before DN and RA were divorced, they had lived separately for many years (she in Kazakhstan and he in Austria). Prior to their divorce, and a precipitating factor of it, DN became aware that RA had been in a relationship with Elnara Shorazova since around 2002. As stated at paragraph 110 of the witness statement of Anita Kelly dated 15 May 2019 ("the core witness statement"), RA married Ms Shorazova "in or around 2008". They had a child in autumn 2008. 3.5 We enclose at tab 1, a translation of the Court Order under which their divorce was granted (the original Russian version having been obtained from RA's book "The Godfather-inLaw"). This demonstrates that DN supported the petition for divorce, citing an irrevocable breakdown in their family life with the preservation of future family life being impossible. 3.6 DN had no contact with RA after their divorce in June 2007 (and as you are aware RA died in 2015). 3.7 On their divorce, DN received significantly less than 50% of any family assets. As is set out at paragraph 0, those of RA's assets which were held in Kazakhstan and were deemed to derive from the proceeds of crime were confiscated. DN did not receive any of RA's assets which were held outside of Kazakhstan. 3.8 Following his parents' divorce, NA had no further contact with his father. Criminal proceedings in Kazakhstan against RA 3.9 At paragraph 155(10) of the core witness statement, Ms Kelly noted RA's conviction in absentia in Kazakhstan (although stated that those convictions were not relied upon by the NCA for the purposes of its application). 3.10 We enclose at tabs 2 and 3, two letters from the Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Kazakhstan, both of which are dated 10 July 2019. The letters summarise two criminal investigations in Kazakhstan in respect of RA and those who were suspected to be his accomplices in an organised criminal group. The first investigation (Investigation No. 1) took place in 2007 and was into suspected kidnapping, theft, embezzlement, extortion, the illegal possession of weapons and use of a knowingly forged document. Following Investigation No. 1, it was found that, at RA's direction, members of the organised criminal group had seized property illegal including land, real estate, shares in real estate, a car, shares in Kazakhstan companies, jewellery, watches and money. We understand that in January 2008, at the conclusion of Investigation No. 1, all of the property belonging to RA which had been investigated and was found to be criminal property was confiscated by the Government of Kazakhstan. 3.11 The letters at tabs 2 and 3 also refer to a second criminal investigation of RA and his accomplices between 2008 and 2017 (Investigation No. 2) following which it was established that between 1999 and 2007 RA's organised crime group had committed the further criminal acts set out in that letter. 3.12 In relation to DN and NA, it was concluded following Investigations No 1 and 2 that: 3.12.1 RA did not transfer illegally acquired funds or assets to DN or NA. 3.12.2 DN and NA did not own or hold any illegally acquired funds or assets. 3.12.3 Specific enquiries were made into the possibility that RA had transferred illegally acquired assets to DN and/or NA and it was confirmed that neither DN nor NA held any illegally acquired funds or assets. It was therefore deemed unnecessary to seize any of DN or NA's assets. DN's political role and early commercial interests 3.13 DN is a successful and accomplished businesswoman. Since 1992, she has developed a portfolio of business interests predominantly in the areas of food (including sugar), cars, media, banking and real estate development such that in 2013 her net worth was estimated by Forbes Kazakhstan to be US $595m (see tab 4). 3.14 On 20 March 2019, DN became Chair of the Senate of Kazakhstan. Prior to that she held roles in public office in Kazakhstan between 2004 and 2007 and again from January 2012 to the present day. We understand that DN's business interests have been under trust management during the periods that she has been in public office in Kazakhstan, as required by domestic legislation. 3.15 DN established her first business in 1992 following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990 and the privatisation reforms which began in Kazakhstan in 1991. Through this first business, DN traded sugar, confectionary, beverages and cigarettes. DN began operating this business at a time when there was very little availability of such goods and demand was substantial. She was one of many entrepreneurial individuals who capitalised on the economic reforms in Kazakhstan at this time. The goods were acquired under the terms of a consignment agreement and accordingly no initial capital was required. DN operated this business between 1992 and 1995 and it became of such a size that she estimates that she had approximately 25 employees at its peak. Significant efforts have been made in Kazakhstan to locate documents relating to this business but given the passage of time these are no longer available. However, DN estimates that she made many millions of dollars (possibly as much as US$ 40 – 45m) during this three year period. At the same time, DN was Vice President of Bobek, an International Children's Charity Fund, assisting her mother who was President. This was an ambassadorial role and was not full time, allowing DN to focus on building her business with the support of her team. 3.16 In 1995, DN commenced a multi brand car trading business, again under a consignment agreement. This ceased trading in 1998. Again, documents are unfortunately no longer available but DN estimates that she made approximately US $5m. The same team of employees assisted her with the running of this business which allowed her to focus on her developing career in the Kazakhstan media. 3.17 Between 1994 and 2004, DN worked predominantly in Kazakhstan media. In 1995, DN founded the Khabar Agency CJSC, which grew to become Kazakhstan's largest broadcasting agency, and became its President in 1998. In addition, she owned a number of other local and international media, broadcasting and advertising agencies (including those named in the Forbes article at tab 4), building a significant market share. A substantial portion of DN's wealth comes from this sector. During this period, DN also began to acquire significant shareholdings in a number of other non-media related Kazakhstan companies, most notably, for the purposes of this letter, in Nurbank (which is addressed in more detail below). DN left her professional roles in 2004 when she entered politics although she continued to own shares in various companies, as she was entitled to.”

“ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY 1 4.1. DN was the beneficial owner of Property 1 both at the time of purchase (albeit with a brief period where NA held it on trust for her) and at the time that it was transferred to Villa Magna. She remains the beneficial owner of this property. There is no connection between Property 1 and RA, whom DN had divorced almost a year prior to her acquisition of that property and with whom she had had no contact since. The document at Appendix 1 summarises the beneficial ownership of Property 1 at the material times. 4.2 The income used by DN to acquire Property 1 came from the proceeds of sale of her shares in JSC Kant, that sale having taken place on the KASE. These were assets transferred to DN on her divorce from RA. Beneficial ownership at the time of purchase of Property 1 4.3 Twingold Holding Ltd ("Twingold") acquired the legal title to Property 1 on 2 April 2008 for consideration of £9,300,000. We enclose the Register of Members for Twingold at tab 5. As can be seen from that register, at the time of the acquisition of Property 1, Twingold was owned as follows: 4.3.1 Sagitta Business Corp ("Sagitta") - 882 shares (88%) 4.3.2 DN– 90 shares (9%) 4.3.3 NA – 30 shares (3%) 4.4 NA was the beneficial owner of Sagitta at the time of purchase. Although we have been unable to obtain a full Register of Shareholders for Sagitta, the extract at tab 6 confirms that NA was the beneficial owner of Sagitta from 23 November 2007 and continued to be as at 19 February 2008. NA effectively held this property on trust for his mother until January 2009 when the ownership of Twingold was transferred to Napel Investment Ltd ("Napel"), a company beneficially owned by DN (as to which see 4.7). 4.5 DN in fact lived in Property 1 with her daughter, Venera, for approximately one year from 2008, during which time she studied English in Hampstead and her daughter attended school. On 5 January 2009, the Register of Members (tab 5) reflects that the ownership of Twingold was transferred to: 4.6.1 Napel – 882 shares (88%) 4.6.2 Delicio Holding Inc ("Delicio") – 120 shares (12%) 4.7 The share register for Napel at tab 7 shows that at this time it was wholly owned by Dragonflower Company SA. As confirmed by the share register at tab 8, Dragonflower Company SA was wholly owned by Dragonflower Foundation, a Panama private interest foundation founded on 6 October 2008. Under the Regulations of this foundation (tab 9), the primary beneficiary is DN. The secondary beneficiaries are identified as NA and his siblings Aisultan Nazarbayev and Venera Aliyeva. 4.8 We understand that Delicio was also beneficially owned by DN. Our clients have not, as yet, been able to obtain a copy of the Share Register but we will provide you with a copy if one is located. In the meantime, we enclose at tab 10 a translated extract from a series of structure charts which were created contemporaneously and which confirm that Delicio was owned by DN. We can confirm that we have reviewed the metadata of the original Russian document (also at tab 10) which reflects that the document was created, and last modified, on 28 May 2008. 4.9 On 15 December 2010 Napel became the sole shareholder of Twingold (as confirmed at tab 5). Beneficial ownership at the time of transfer of Property 1 to Villa Magna Foundation 4.10 Villa Magna was established in Panama on 28 January 2013. DN was the effective Founder, and is the primary beneficiary, of Villa Magna. This is confirmed by the Mandate Agreement dated 28 January 2013 (tab 11) and Villa Magna's By-laws, dated 18 July 2013 (tab 12). 4.11 On 6 March 2013, as confirmed by the Register of Members at tab 5, ownership of Twingold passed from Napel (the ultimate beneficial owner of which was DN as explained in paragraph 4.7) to Villa Magna. 4.12 On 25 March 2013, legal title to Property 1 was transferred from Twingold to Villa Magna. 4.13 On 25 September 2015, the President of Villa Magna confirmed by way of a nominee declaration that Villa Magna had previously held and still continued to hold Property 1 on trust for DN (tab 13). 4.14 The transfer of Property 1 from Twingold to Villa Magna was in anticipation of the introduction of the Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings ("ATED") on 1 April 2013, a new property residential tax under which properties owned indirectly, for example through offshore corporate structures, were liable to the tax, but those owned by Foundations were not. Source of funds for the purchase of Property 1 4.15 DN purchased Property 1 using part of the proceeds of sale of her shares in JSC Kant on the KASE. The schedule appended to this letter at Appendix 2 summarises the relevant transactions (which we address in detail below) and demonstrates the movement of these funds from a Nurbank account in Kazakhstan in DN's name through bank accounts with Hellenic Bank in Cyprus to Herbert Smith (as it then was), the law firm which acted for Twingold and DN in connection with the purchase of Property 1. 4.16 DN acquired her formal interest in JSC Kant on her divorce from RA as part of the financial settlement. The transfer of these shares from RA to DN took place on 29 June 2007 as can be seen from the translation of DN's transaction history at tab 14 which records that RA's shareholding (5,214,270 shares) was donated to DN for no consideration. These shares were available to be transferred as part of the divorce process since, unlike other assets then held by RA in Kazakhstan, they were not identified by the Government of Kazakhstan as being any part of his suspected proceeds of crime. 4.17 DN's transaction history reflects that on 23 November 2007 she sold 2,177,903 shares to Beatrice Alliance Ltd (a company incorporated in the UK and wholly owned by DN at that time). Following this sale, DN's shareholding was reduced to 3,036,367 shares. 4.18 A further transaction history at tab 15 confirms that DN sold her remaining shares in Kant in the following two tranches: 4.18.1 On 4 January 2008, 3,017,817 shares were sold to Gas Development LLP for 8,967,352,680.99 tenge (£37,638,270.36 or US $74,352,659.19) [Footnote 7: All conversion rates applied in this letter are as at the date of the transaction using historic rates obtained from fxtop.com]. [Footnote 8: Please note that there is a typographical error in the English translation of the document at tab 15 in respect of the date of purchase of the shares by Gas Development LLP. The original Russian document reflects that this was a simultaneous sale and purchase on 4 January 2008.] 4.18.2 On 8 January 2008, 18,550 shares were sold to JSC Money Experts SB for 55,120,768.50 tenge (£231,564.74 or US $456,927.27). 4.19 A letter from Nurbank at tab 16 confirms receipt of these amounts into a bank account in DN's name on 8 January 2008. 4.20 On 4 February 2008, DN transferred US $46,000,000 from a Nurbank bank account in her name to a Hellenic Bank account in the name of Greatex Trade and Invest Corp ("Greatex") (account number 240-07-810433-02) [Footnote 9: the ownership of which is addressed at paragraph 5.5. below]. A letter from Nurbank at tab 17 confirms that this payment was made. Sums were paid into the Greatex Hellenic bank account under the terms of a Payment Agency Agreement (a copy of which we have been unable to locate although we have seen similar agreements entered into by companies owned by our clients at this time). 4.21 We are in the process of obtaining copy statements from Hellenic Bank confirming the receipt of this sum into the Greatex account and we will provide these to you on receipt. In the interim, contemporaneous extracts from an accounts system confirm that as at 8 February 2008, the sum of $45,999,980 (£23,606,973.06) was owed to DN by Greatex (see tab 18). This is consistent with DN transferring that amount (less a $20 bank transfer fee) to Greatex under the terms of a Payment Agency Agreement. 4.22 The account extract at tab 18 further reflects two payments to Herbert Smith by Greatex in settlement of part of the balance due to DN by Greatex as follows: 4.22.1 US $150,087.18 (£76,100.54) on 14 February 2008 to Herbert Smith's office account; and 4.22.2 US $21,014,268 (£10,447,011.25) on 11 March 2008 to Herbert Smith's client account. 4.23 The email at tab 19 from Ben Ward of Herbert Smith Freehills to Johanna Walsh of Mishcon de Reya confirms the receipt of £10,399,988 by Herbert Smith of this sum for the purchase of Property 1. The difference in amounts is likely to arise from the historic conversion rate used for the purposes of this letter.”

“Mr Kurmanbayev, Mr Enry and Mr Dall’Osso (represented by lawyers) wrote to Global Witness prior to the publication of its report. I have not seen the contents of those letters. However, it appears that these individuals denied that Rakhat Aliyev was the ultimate beneficial owner of Greatex, Farmont Baker Street, Dynamic Estates, Parkview Estates, Villa Magna Foundation, or indeed the properties identified in the report (although they did not identify who was the beneficial owner, citing confidentiality). Mr Dall’Osso also denied knowing that Rakhat Aliyev was the ultimate beneficial owner of Metallwerke or Armoreal Trading GmbH. Further, Mr Kurmanbayev specifically denied that he has had any relationship (whether professional or personal) with Rakhat Aliyev or Elnara Shorazova, either directly or through intermediaries. Instead: ‘his principal condition for accepting the position [at Greatex] was that Rakhat Aliyev was not involved in the business and he would not be required to deal with him, whether directly or indirectly’. All of the individuals also denied any criminal acts, including any knowing involvement in money laundering, highlighting inter alia that the property transactions were conducted by reputable international law firms (who would have conducted due diligence as to the source of funds).”

“Several cases have emphasised that there is nothing implicit in complex, offshore corporate structures which evidences an unjustifiable risk of dissipation. As Arnold J put in VTB v Nutrietek [2012] 2 BCLC 437, 517, para 233 (approved by the Court of Appeal ….): “It is not uncommon for international businessmen, and indeed quoted UK companies, to use offshore vehicles for their operations, particularly for tax reasons. This may make it difficult to enforce a judgment. But in that respect claimants such as VTB have to take defendants such as Mr Malofeev as they find them. More is required before the court will conclude that there is a risk of dissipation”

“Article 17 The foundation should have a Foundation Council, whose powers or responsibilities shall be established in the foundation charter or in its regulations. Unless it be a juridical person, the number of members of the Foundation Council shall not be less than three (3).” “Article 18 The Foundation Council shall be responsible for carrying out the purposes or objectives of the foundation. Unless otherwise stated in the foundation charter or its regulations, the Foundation Council shall have the following general obligations and duties: To administer the assets of the foundation in accordance with the foundation charter or its regulations. To carry out acts, contracts of lawful business that may be suitable or necessary to fulfil the purposes of the foundation, and to include in such contracts, agreements and other instruments or obligations, such clauses and conditions as are necessary and convenient, which conform to the purposes of the foundation and are not contrary to the law, to morals, to bonus mores or to public order. To inform the beneficiaries of the foundation of the economic situation of the latter, as established in the foundation charter or its regulations. To deliver to the beneficiaries of the foundation the assets or resources set up in their favour by the foundation charter or its regulations. To carry out all such acts or contracts which are permitted to the foundation by the present Law and other applicable legal or regulatory provisions.”

“BY-LAWS of Villa Magna, Panama ARTICLE 1 118. The first beneficiary of the Foundation is Mrs Dariga Nazarbayeva. During her lifetime, the first beneficiary will exercise all the rights pertaining to the founder, including but not limited to the right to amend these by-laws, to order the liquidation of the Foundation, and to dispose of all assets of the Foundation without any limit. The Board of Directors of the Foundation will implement without delay the decisions of the First Beneficiary. ARTICLE 2 119. During her lifetime, the First beneficiary will be entitled to dispose without any restriction of all the assets of the Foundation, through the Board of the Foundation who will have to execute and perform all the orders given by her, unless these instructions appear to be unlawful or contrary to law or the ethics. 120. The Board of Directors of the Foundation may not amend these By-laws, without the consent of the First Beneficiary. 121. In case of death of the First Beneficiary, the Second Beneficiaries will benefit of the rights granted to them by these by-laws. They may however not amend the By-laws. ARTICLE 3 122. The Second Beneficiaries of the Foundation will be the legitimate children of the First Beneficiary, in equal parts. 123. As of the date of the these By-laws, the Second Beneficiaries are 124. ….. 125. The Second Beneficiaries may not amend these By-laws, The Second Beneficiaries (after they are 25), may however give their opinion to the Board of the Foundation as to the management of the assets of the Foundation. The opinion of the Second beneficiaries will not be binding on the Board of the Foundation. ARTICLE 4 126. Each of the Second Beneficiary will be entitled to receive, […] ARTICLE 6 127. If no beneficiary may be determined under the previous provisions, the Board will remit all the assets of the Foundation to a charitable institution of its choice ARTICLE 7 128. The Foundation will inform in a discrete way the Beneficiaries of their rights in the Foundation, at the time when they are entitled to such rights. 129. The First Beneficiary may appoint any person of his choice to (i) give instructions to the Foundation in his name and (ii) give directions and instructions to the Foundation after the decease of the First Beneficiary. ARTICLE 8 130. The Board of the Foundation and the Protector of the Foundation will be appointed by the First Beneficiary, who may at any time replace the Board of the Foundation and the Protector. ARTICLE 9 131. The liquidation of the Foundation will be made: -. if the First Beneficiary so requests -. if there is no asset remaining in the Foundation -. in accordance with the article of incorporation of the Foundation of for (sic) reasons provided by the Laws at the seat of the Foundation. 135. So done on July 18th 2013 136. The Founder”

“1. The trustee undertakes to carry out their mandate in conformity exclusively with the instructions which will be given to them by the principal or by the persons appointed by him to this effect, subject however to the limits imposed upon them by the law, morality and the professional situation. …. 3. Apart from instructions so received, the trustee is not authorized to take any decision or measure other than those involved in the formal management of the company. They are, however, entitled to act on their own initiative in the event of danger in delay or when the interests of the company require immediate action and a prior agreement with the principal turns out to be impossible. The trustee, in such an event, will act in accordance with the presumed intentions of the principal, whom they will inform of the decisions made as soon as it may be possible to do so.”

“Villa Magna Foundation Nominee Declaration 142. WHEREAS in accordance with the By-Laws of the Foundation Dariga Nazarbayeva is currently the first and intended beneficiary of the Foundation. 143. AND WHEREAS the principal asset of the Foundation is a property situate at and known as 32 Denewood Road, London N2 (the “Property”) 144. AND WHEREAS it is desired for the avoidance of doubt to confirm that the Foundation has previously held and still continues to hold the Property as nominee for Dariga Nazarbayeva 145. Now, the Foundation Council, acting through its President, HEREBY CONFIRMS, that the Foundation has previously held and still continues to hold the Property as nominee for Dariga Nazarbayeva 146. In witness whereof this document has been executed by the Foundation Council on the 29th September 2015. 147. Duly signed on behalf of the Foundation Council by its President Andrew J. Baker”

“To be clear, I did not know, never met and never had any contact whatsoever with the late Rakhat Aliyev.”

“5. I have read the 9 August letter …. and I am happy to confirm the truth of it on the basis that what is said in the letter and the documents that are produced in support of it is consistent with my knowledge and the due diligence I conducted at the relevant times. 6. For the avoidance of doubt, I have never been involved in the facilitation of serious crime or, for that matter, any crime at all.”

“120. I suspect that, whilst alive, Rakhat Aliyev was involved in serious crime during public office and subsequently. 121. I also suspect that, whilst Rakhat Aliyev was alive and/or after his death, members of the Aliyev family have been involved in laundering the proceeds of his unlawful conduct through the acquisition and handling of assets.”

“11. As identified at paragraphs 48 – 49 and 62 – 63 of the core statement, Property 3 was: (1) purchased on 20 September 2010 for £32,000,000 and registered in the name of Dedomin International (a BVI company). (2) subsequently transferred to the Panamanian registered Tropicana Assets Foundation on 27 March 2013. 12. At the time of writing this statement, Tropicana Assets Foundation remains the registered proprietor of Property 3. ….. 26. The NCA’s primary position is that there are no ‘known’ sources of Mr Baker’s income as President of the Foundation Council and there are no known sources of Tropicana Assets Foundation’s income i.e. reasonably ascertainable from available information at the time of making this application (within the meaning of s.362B(6)(d) of POCA). Given the extremely secretive nature of Panamanian Private Interest Foundations, there is no publicly available information about the funds which have been applied to Tropicana Assets Foundation since it was established (other than the minimum starting capital of US$10,000). Article 35 of the Foundation Law requires members of the Foundation Council, any supervisory bodies and any public or private employees who might have any knowledge of the activities, transactions or operations of a foundation ‘shall at all times maintain secrecy and confidentiality’ in this respect. 27. In any event, whilst the sources of Mr Baker’s income as President of the Council and the sources of Tropicana Assets Foundation’s income are not ‘known’, I strongly suspect that any sources of income are likely to have arisen from Rakhat Aliyev and/or members of his family (whether directly or indirectly), and are unlikely to have been lawfully obtained: 27.1 I believe that Rakhat Aliyev was the ultimate Founder of Tropicana Assets Foundation (whether acting personally or through another): (1) As identified in paragraphs 137 - 153 of the core statement, there are strong links between Property 3 and the Aliyev family, both before and after Tropicana Assets Foundation was established, including: (a) Individuals associated to Rakhat Aliyev are linked to Property 3. For example, Mr Enry was the liquidator and attorney of Dedomin International (the company which initially purchased Property 3 in September 2010) when transferring the property to Tropicana Assets Foundation, and was also appointed as President of the Foundation. (b) Property 3 has also been obtained and handled in a similar manner to Properties 1 and 2 (both of which have further links to the Aliyev family). For example, Property 3 is legally owned by a Panamanian Private Interest Foundation which is almost identical in its nature and composition to the foundation which owns Property 1. Legal ownership of the two properties was transferred to the foundations within days of each other. (2) As identified in paragraph 139 of the core statement, I believe that Rakhat Aliyev had a propensity to place assets in the names of others. (3) I have not identified any other person who is more likely to have been the Founder at this stage. Whilst I acknowledge the possibility that the Founder may have been Nurali Aliyev, I note that the property was initially purchased in September 2010, at a time when he was 25 years old. I believe that it is more likely at this stage that his father, Rakhat Aliyev, was the Founder. 27.2 As Founder of Tropicana Assets Foundation, I believe that Rakhat Aliyev would have been responsible for providing income to the Foundation prior to his death. 27.3 For the reasons identified at paragraphs 120 – 136 of the core statement, I suspect that any income originating from Rakhat Aliyev is likely to have been unlawfully obtained. I also suspect that members of his family have been involved in laundering the proceeds of his unlawful conduct. 27.4 Finally, and significantly, my suspicions above are strengthened by the complex and secretive manner in which Property 3 has been obtained and handled. It was initially purchased outright by a BVI company for a significant sum of money. Ownership of the property was transferred in March 2013, in circumstances which were extremely similar to two other UK properties of significant value, namely Properties 1 and 2. Ownership was transferred to a Panamanian Private Interest Foundation, an entity which is subject to strict secrecy laws. The President of Tropicana Assets Foundation resigned two months after the Global Witness report was published.”

“6. ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY 3 6.1 DN was the beneficial owner of Property 3 both at the time of purchase and at the time that it was transferred to Tropicana Assets. She remains the beneficial owner of this property. There is no connection between Property 3 and RA, whom DN had divorced more than two years prior to her acquisition of that property and with whom she had had no contact since. The document at Appendix 5 summarises the beneficial ownership of Property 3 at the material times. 6.2 The income used by DN to acquire Property 3 came from the proceeds of sale of her shares in Nurbank, that sale having taken place on the KASE. DN built up her shareholding in Nurbank through a series of share purchases between 2002 and 2009. Beneficial ownership at the time of purchase of Property 3 6.3 Dedomin International Ltd ("Dedomin") acquired the legal title to Property 3 on 20 September 2010 for consideration of £31,000,000 plus an additional £1,000,000 for chattels. The Certificate of Incorporation for Dedomin at tab 48 reflects that it was incorporated on 7 December 2009. The Board Resolution and cancelled share certificate at tab 49 reflects that at the time that it acquired Property 3, Napel was the shareholder of Dedomin. As can be seen from the Register of Members at tab 7 and the summary of the ownership of Napel at paragraph 4.7, the ultimate beneficial owner of Napel was DN. Beneficial ownership at the time of transfer of Property 3 to Tropicana Assets Foundation 6.4 Tropicana Assets was established in Panama on 9 January 2013. DN was the effective Founder, and is the primary beneficiary, of Tropicana Assets. This is confirmed by the Mandate Agreement dated 9 January 2013 (tab 50) and the By-laws, dated 18 July 2013 (tab 51). 6.5 On 6 March 2013, as confirmed by the Board Resolution and share certificate at tab 49, ownership of Dedomin passed from Napel (the ultimate beneficial owner of which was DN) to Tropicana Assets. 6.6 On 27 March 2013, legal title to Property 3 was transferred from Dedomin to Tropicana Assets. 6.7 On 25 September 2015, the President of Tropicana Assets confirmed by way of a nominee declaration that Tropicana Assets had previously held and still continued to hold Property 3 on trust for DN (tab 52). 6.8 The transfer of Property 3 from Dedomin to Tropicana Assets was also in anticipation of the introduction of ATED on 1 April 2013. Source of funds for the purchase of Property 3 6.9 Between February 2002 and January 2009, DN acquired a substantial shareholding in Nurbank, a private commercial bank in Kazakhstan. The acquisition of DN's shareholdings in Nurbank can be seen in the enclosed extracts from the "Integrated Securities Registrar" JSC at tab 53 and a letter from Nurbank JSC dated 3 June 2019 at tab 54. The document at tab 53 identifies all Nurbank share transactions involving DN on her personal account while the letter from Nurbank confirms payment dates and amounts. 6.10 As can be seen from the documents at tab 53, DN subsequently increased her shareholding in Nurbank in June 2007 and again in June 2008. These were primarily purchases from Nurbank following share issues by the bank. 6.11 On 13 May 2010, DN sold her entire shareholding in Nurbank (9,792 privileged shares and 1,715,309 simple shares) to an individual named Sofia Sarsenova. The transfer of these shares to Ms Sarsenova can also be seen at tab 53. 6.12 The evidence of payment for these shares is contained in the letter from Nurbank at 55 and confirms that on 13 May 2010 DN received two transfers into her Nurbank account of 145,395,239.04 tenge (£672,661.92) and 25,469,542,696.33 tenge (£117,833,236.35) for the sale of the shares in Nurbank (together approximately US $175m). 6.13 DN used part of the proceeds of sale of her shareholding in Nurbank to acquire Property 3. The schedule appended to this letter at Appendix 6 summarises the relevant transactions (which we address in detail below) and demonstrates the movement of these funds from a Nurbank account in DN's name through bank accounts with JBB (held either in DN's name or in the name of companies of which she was the ultimate beneficial owner) to Reed Smith, the law firm which acted for Dedomin and DN in connection with the purchase of Property 3. 6.14 On 26 May 2010, DN transferred US $120m from an account in her name at Nurbank to a JBB account in her name (confirmation of which is at tab 56). The bank statement18 at tab 57 reflects that on 27 May 2010, this sum was received in to a USD account in DN's name at JBB (account number 0306.7302.2120.333.01) ("the JBB USD account") 6.15 On 28 June 2010, $2,620,741.35 was transferred out of the JBB USD account (the bank statement at tab 57 also identifies that the amount was converted to £1,741,125.00). On the same day (28 June 2010), a 6.15.1. £1,741,125.00 was received into the account (we assume from the JBB GBP account); 6.15.2. £1,741,125.00 was sent to the Reed Smith GBP client account. 192. The relevant Glamex account bank statement is at tab 59. 6.16. As indicated by the JBB account opening document at tab 60, the beneficial owner of Glamex Holding SA was DN. 6.17. It is understood that the payment to the Reed Smith GBP client account from the Glamex account was the deposit for Property 3 plus other costs associated with the purchase. The completion statement from Reed Smith at tab 61 reflects that the deposit was £1,600,000. 6.18. On 30 June 2010, following those transfers, the statement for the JBB USD account at tab 57 reflects that that the balance of the $120m deposit, $117,360,000 was transferred to a Fiduciary Call Deposit investment account. Fiduciary deposits are a financial product which have been primarily developed in Switzerland. A fiduciary deposit is a deposit placed by a customer with a third bank (recipient bank) through an agent bank. The recipient bank pays the agent bank the interest on the deposit which is then passed onto the depositor. 6.19. On 17 September 2010, the statements at tab 62 show that £31,438,470.56 was transferred from the JBB GBP account to an account (payee details are not reflected on the bank statement). The effect of this transfer was to reduce the balance of the GBP account to £62,714,610.56 (the account already being overdrawn in the amount of -£31,276,140. 6.20. On the same day (17 September 2010), a GBP account held by Dedomin International Ltd at JBB, 0306.9517.2120.402.01, ("the Dedomin account") received £31,438,470.56 (tab 63). On 20 September 2010, the Dedomin account transferred the full sum (£31,438,410.56) to the Reed Smith client account, which was the balance for Property 3 (as confirmed by the receipt from Reed Smith's files at tab 64). 6.21. Following the transfer of monies from the GBP account to the Dedomin account, the statements at tab 62 show that the GBP account received the following three deposits, which restored the GBP account to credit: 6.21.1 £32,166,000.00 received from the Fiduciary Call Deposit investment account on 20 September 2010 (restoring the balance to -£34,743,353.25); 6.21.2 £31,440,000.00 received on 20 September 2010, the statement identifies this as 'Fixed Term Loan GBP 31,440,000, 1.97 20/09/2011 (restoring the balance to - 6.21.3. £4,195,000.00 received from the Fiduciary Call Deposit investment account on 20 September 2010 (restoring balance to £2,496.47).”

“120. I suspect that, whilst alive, Rakhat Aliyev was involved in serious crime during public office and subsequently. 121. I also suspect that, whilst Rakhat Aliyev was alive and/or after his death, members of the Aliyev family have been involved in laundering the proceeds of his unlawful conduct through the acquisition and handling of assets.”

“5. ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY 2 5.1 NA was the beneficial owner of Property 2 at the time of purchase and at the time that it was transferred to Manrick. He remains the beneficial owner of this property. There is no connection between Property 2 and RA, NA not having had any contact with his father after his parents' divorce. 5.2 The source of funds for the purchase of Property 2 was a loan from Nurbank in the amount of US $65m to a company beneficially owned by NA (as confirmed by the letter from Nurbank at tab 20). Beneficial ownership at the time of purchase of Property 2 5.3 Riviera Alliance Inc ("Riviera") acquired the legal title to Property 2 on 29 August 2008 for consideration of £39,501,450. We enclose the Register of Members for Riviera at tab 21. As can be seen from that register, at the time of the acquisition of Property 2, Riviera was wholly owned at the time of purchase by Greatex. (We note the typographical error in the share register but are instructed that the shareholder was Greatex. The registered address given for Greatex on this share register is the same as that given for Greatex in the Invigorate share register (see the fifth page of tab 25). Greatex was, in turn, wholly owned by Aldener International Inc ("Aldener") (see tab 22). At that time, Aldener was wholly owned by Sarah and Edward Petre- Mears (see tab 23) who each held it subject to a declaration of trust. These declarations of trust are tab 24 and, regrettably, the beneficiary details are not included. We understand that NA was the beneficiary and this is consistent with the Petre-Mears being shareholders on the incorporation of other companies which are beneficially owned by our clients (see for example tabs 5, 21 and 23). 5.4 Following the purchase of Property 2, and after refurbishment and renovation, NA, his wife and their children began living in Property 2 and it continues to be their family home. 5.5 From 9 March 2009, the Register of Members of Greatex reflects that the ownership of Greatex (which continued to wholly own Riviera) was transferred in its entirety to Invigorate Group Ltd ("Invigorate"). The Register of Members for Invigorate reflects that NA has wholly owned Invigorate since 15 September 2008 (tab 25). Beneficial ownership at the time of transfer of Property 2 to Manrick Private Foundation 5.6 On 28 March 2013, Greatex transferred its shares in Riviera to Manrick (as confirmed by the Instrument of Transfer at tab 26). 5.7 The share register for Greatex at tab 22 confirms that it was wholly owned by Invigorate at the time of transfer, which in turn was wholly owned by NA (as confirmed by the share register at tab 25 and the written confirmation from the BVI Financial Investigation Authority at page 198 of AK/1, the bundle of documents accompanying the core witness statement). 5.8 On 29 March 2013 legal title to Property 2 was transferred from Rivera to Manrick. 5.9 The Founder's Declaration at tab 27 confirms that professional trustee company United International Trust NV became the effective Founders of Manrick on 29 December 2006 (Manrick having been founded on 24 April 2001). An invoice dated 8 April 2013 (tab 28) from United Trust Company NV (the shareholder of United International Trust) reflects a fee for the sale and activation of Manrick together with a director's and domiciliation fee. This supports that Manrick was acquired "off the shelf" from United International Trust prior to the date of the invoice. We have also been provided with a declaration of ownership (see tab 29) which reflects that NA became the sole beneficiary of Manrick on 6 March 2013. 5.10 The transfer of Property 2 from Riviera to Manrick was also in anticipation of the introduction of ATED on 1 April 2013. Beneficial ownership at the time of transfer of Property 2 to the joint ownership of Manrick Private Foundation and Alderton Investments Ltd 5. 11 On 3 January 2014, legal title to Property 2 was transferred into the joint names of Manrick and Alderton Investments Ltd ("Alderton"). On the same date, a legal charge was signed on behalf of Manrick and Alderton in favour of Barclays Bank plc. 5.12 The documents at tab 30 reflect that Alderton Investments Ltd was incorporated in Anguilla on 9 December 2013 and that NA was, and continues to be, the sole shareholder. 5.13 For completeness, the Barclays Bank mortgage offer at tab 31 reflects that the valuation of Property 2 as at 12 December 2013 was £35,000,000 and that the sum of £17,500,000 was offered by the bank. We are instructed that this is the amount that was borrowed. Source of funds for the purchase of Property 2 5.14 NA purchased Property 2 principally using funds loaned by Nurbank to Terra Holding LLP ("Terra") in the amount of US $65m (although he paid the deposit using the proceeds of sale from a television and radio company). The schedule appended to this letter at Appendix 4 summarises the relevant transactions (which we address in detail below) and demonstrates the movement of these funds from Terra's Nurbank account through a Hellenic Bank account in Cyprus in the name of Triumph Alliance Inc ("Triumph") (account number 240-07-810212-02 ("the Triumph account") to Herbert Smith, who acted for Riviera and NA in connection with the purchase of Property 2. 5.15 We enclose at tab 32 those copies of bank statements relating to the Triumph account which are presently available to our client. There is a credit of US $8,716,264.50 (£4,303,034.25), which was received into the Triumph account on 6 December 2007 and a further credit of US $249,672.54 (£123,158.58) which was received into the account on 14 December 2007. These were the funds from which payments were made in May 2008 in satisfaction of the £4m deposit for Property 2. 5.16 This money represents the proceeds of sale on 14 November 2007 of NA's 40% interest in Shahar LLP, a Kazakhstan television and radio company. NA held this interest through a company called Nurtransservice 1 LLP. Confirmation that he was the UBO of this company can be found at tab 33. The sale of these shares to a company called Logic Systems can be seen on the extract from the transaction log at tab 34. On 22 November 2007 Timur Segizbayev, acting as a trustee for NA, received funds from Logic Systems in the amount of 1,118,610,900 tenge (£4,505,192.31 or US $9,297,543.21). Mr Segizbayev then transferred these sums to the Triumph account in two tranches on 30 November 2007 and 4 December 2007. A copy of Mr Segizbayev's bank statement at tab 35 confirms these transactions. 5.17 The Triumph account bank statements at tab 32 also reflect the following two payments to the Herbert Smith client account which are consistent with the payment of a 10% deposit: 5.17.1 US $5,898,273 (£3,003,634.90) on 20 May 2008. 5.17.2 US $1,980,273 (£1,001,445.17) on 27 May 2008. At the material time, in May 2008, Triumph was wholly owned by Nurali Aliyev (see share certificates at tab 36). 5.18 We enclose at tab 37 a certified translation of a Nurbank bank statement for Terra which indicates that US $65m was paid into that account on 20 August 2008 pursuant to a loan agreement. The letter from Nurbank at tab 38 confirms the fact of the loan. The statement reflects that this sum was then transferred to Jupiter Intertrade Ltd ("Jupiter") on 21 August 2008 pursuant to a loan agreement dated 18 August 2008 (at tab 39). This money was paid into the Triumph Hellenic bank pursuant to the Payment Agency Agreement between Jupiter and Triumph at tab 40. 5.19 On 29 August 2008, a payment of US $64,999,980 (£35,510,677.91) was received from Terra bringing the total balance of the account to US $70,728,637.31 (£38,640,348.17), the most significant credit prior to that date being a payment from NA on 8 July 2008 of US $19,999,980 (£10,926,354.80) (see tab 32). On the same day (8 July 2008), as set out by a bank statement for an account in NA's name at Nurbank, NA transferred the sum of 2,411,000,000 Tenge or US $20,012,016) to the Triumph account (tab 41). The bank statement at tab 41 shows that the sum was originally received by NA from DN for "material assistance to" NA. 5.20 On 29 August 2008, a payment was made out of the Triumph account in the sum of US $68,898,287.39 (£37,640,394.54). A receipt at tab 42 shows that a payment was made from Triumph's account at the Hellenic Bank to the account of Herbert Smith at Barclays in London for £37,577,319 with the payment details "Property Purchase Agreement dated 20 May 2008". 5.21 At the material time, in August 2008, the companies involved in the transfer of the balance of the monies had the following ownership structures: 5.21.1 Terra was 100% owned by Capital Holding (see the Terra share register at tab 43), which was majority owned by Dolores Trade & Invest (see minutes dated 24 May 2009 of Capital Holding LLP shareholder meeting at tab 44 which confirms that Dolores Trade & Invest had a 90% interest), which was wholly owned by Triumph Alliance Inc (see Annual Return, tab 45). Dolores Trade & Invest was incorporated on 24 May 2007. 5.21.2 Jupiter appears to have been wholly owned by Sarah and Edward Petre- Mears (see Minutes of First Meeting of Board of Directors at tab 46) who each held it subject to a declaration of trust until 24 April 2008. These declarations of trust are at tab 47 and, regrettably, the beneficiary details are not included. We understand that NA was the beneficiary (and we refer you to our comments on this at paragraph 5.3). 5.21.3 Triumph Alliance Inc was majority owned by Greatex Trade & Invest Corp (see share certificates at tab 36), which in turn was wholly owned by Aldener International Inc (see the Greatex Register of Members at tab 22). At that time, we are instructed that Aldener was held on trust for NA as set out at paragraph 5.3. 5.22 In light of the desktop appraisal conducted by Savills 14 which concludes that a purchase price in August 2008 of £39m was well in excess of the property's true value at the time, we can confirm that we have seen a Valuation which was conducted for Julius Baer Bank ("JBB") in August 2008 which confirmed that the market value of the property was £37m. The report notes that the property was marketed at £45m.”

“116. The LinkedIn profile reveals the following information about Nurali Aliyev: 116.1 He has obtained a Bachelors and Masters Degree in Business Administration and Management at Pepperdine University (in USA) and IMADEC University (in Vienna, Austria). 116.2 From March 2006 – July 2010, he was a director at Nurbank, located in Almaty, Kazakhstan. He was initially appointed as Deputy Chairman from March 2006 – April 2007, before becoming Chairman of the Board in April 2007 (when 22 years old). This was a company which his father, Rakhat Aliyev, is said to have owned (referred to in more detail below). 116.3 In September 2006, whilst Deputy Chairman at Nurbank, he founded an entity named Capital Holding JSC. 116.4 From September 2010 – May 2013, he was VicePresident of the Development Bank of Kazakhstan, located in Astana, Kazakhstan (see paragraph 117 below for more details). 116.5 From October 2013 – December 2014, he was Chairman and CEO of Transtelecom, located in Astana, Kazakhstan. 116.6 From November 2014 (it would seem whilst still Chairman and CEO of Transtelecom) – March 2016, he was Deputy Mayor of Astana in Kazakhstan. 116.7 In November 2016, he founded the ‘ZhanArtu foundation’ based in Astana, Kazakhstan. 116.8 In 2018, he attended the Stanford University Graduate School of Business. 116.9 The LinkedIn profile currently includes the following description: ‘Nurali Aliyev is an investor and entrepreneur. He is the founder and shareholder of Capital Holding JSC which manages a diversified portfolio of 25 companies that span a number of different industries. Nurali Aliyev is the founder and shareholder of Darmen Holding JSC, providing IT services to the corporate sector through its subsidiary firms. The services range from the improvement of enterprise business processes, enterprise software solutions, enterprise cloud solutions, data centers, big data, software production, hardware production, hardware distribution, optic fibre construction and installation. Nurali Aliyev is also a shareholder at Transtelecom JSC, one of the largest communications providers in Kazakhstan, specialising in the provision of a wide range of telecommunications services. Previously, Nurali Aliyev served as the deputy mayor of Astana, member of the managing board of the Development Bank of Kazakhstan Chairman of the Board of Directors of Nurbank JSC, and President of the Sugar Centre, JSC. Following his studies at Pepperdine University in California and at the International University in Austria, Nurali Aliyev graduated from the Abai Kazakh National University with a Bachelor of Economics and Finance. In 2006, Nurali attended the McCOMBS School of Business, University of Texas, and achieved an Executive Master of Business Administration from IMADEC University in Vienna, Austria.’”