The case to be made by Jim Stanley in his attempt to overturn the findings of Lyndon MacCann, the inspector into the Bula affair, would seem in the main to be based on legal arguments.
In his statement to The Irish Times, Mr Stanley refers to what he claims is "inadmissable purported evidence, rumour, and hearsay" in Mr MacCann's report. He alleges the inspector "misdirected himself in law and applied unfair procedures in the course of his inspection and that no reasonable inspector could have reached the conclusions reached by Mr McCann".
Mr Stanley also, of course, says that the central conclusion of the inspector's report - that he was at all material times the beneficial owner of Mir Oil Development Ltd - is incorrect. He claims the company was owned by Craig Bond. The only relevant evidence not available to Mr MacCann during the months he was preparing his report, were the testimonies of Mr Stanley and of Mr Bond.
Mr Bond's claim to the ownership of Mir was outlined by his lawyers to the Dublin High Court, but Mr Bond himself never appeared before the court. The only evidence known to be in his possession is a document giving him power of attorney to act for Mir Oil. The document was signed in November of last year, just weeks before he came forward making his claim and two years after the Mir deal was executed.
Mr Stanley's interview with The Irish Times is the first time he has given his version of events, and in a general way his story ties in with the claims made by Mr Bond. However, Mr Stanley has produced no new documentary evidence to support his contentions.
Mr Stanley says he does not know if Mr Bond will turn up in court to support him, as he has not asked him to do so. At this stage there is no reason to believe any new evidence is going to be produced to support Mr Stanley's case. He faces a difficult battle if he is to overturn the findings of the inspector's report.
In his report Mr MacCann lists 34 reasons why he decided Mr Stanley was at all material times the owner of Mir Oil Development Ltd. He refers to documents where Mr Stanley is described as "president" of Mir Space, a subsidiary of Mir Oil; documentation in offices formerly used by Mr Stanley's son, Brendan, linking Mir Oil to a joint venture in the Kabarding-Balkarskaya region of Russia; the presence of Mir Oil and Mir Space letterheads on the Bula computer; requests from Mr Stanley for related party advice from Gouldens solicitors, London and LK Shields & Partners, Dublin, at around the time of the Mir/ KMNGG agreement.
He also refers to representations by Mr Stanley to KMNGG executives that Mir was an offshore Bula subsidiary; the "clear impression" given to Arthur Andersen & Co in Moscow by Mr Stanley, that Mir Space was part of the Bula group: the fact that nobody other than Mr Stanley and his translator and assistant, Elena Loven, gave instructions on behalf of Mir Oil in the negotiations for the Transfer and Option Agreement with Bula: the admission by Ms Loven that all her instructions concerning the negotiation of the Transfer and Option Agreement came from Mr Stanley.
Mr MacCann further refers to Mr Stanley's "deliberate lies" to Bula and its advisers to the effect that Charles Ellis was the beneficial owner of Mir Oil; numerous inconsistencies in the account given by Mr Bond as to how he came to acquire a beneficial interest in Mir Oil; the making of a loan of £30,015 sterling to Mir Space out of the funds which came from the sale of the Bula shares; the payment in September 1997 by Mr Stanley of a bill due on work done for Mir Oil.
While some of these matters could be explained by the fact that Mr Bond was very anxious that his involvement in the Siberian oil deal be kept secret, others are not explained by that scenario.
Mr Stanley said he did not agree to meet with the inspector because he was advised not to do so by his lawyer, Stephen Barker, of Barker Gillette, London. Certain assurances were sought in relation to Mr Stanley's evidence, but when these were not forthcoming Mr MacCann twice travelled to Moscow to meet Mr Stanley, the second time with a High Court order. If an attempt to prosecute Mr Stanley for contempt of court was initiated, it would almost definitely trigger an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, on the grounds that Mr Stanley has a right to silence.
A draft copy of Mr MacCann's report was sent to Mr Stanley in July, in order to give him an opportunity to respond to its findings. Mr Stanley said that, for various reasons, he had only two weeks to consider the 198-page report and make his response. He felt this was an insufficient amount of time. Mr Barker was of a similar view. No response was sent to the inspector.
In relation to the false test well report, Mr Stanley insists he had nothing to do with this. The inspector decided that this report was prepared by Willie Donachie, a Bula technical consultant, at the request of Mr Stanley and Tim Howell, a former Bula technical manager. Mr Donachie outlined this series of events to Mr MacCann and Mr MacCann decided he believed him.
There was documentary evidence supporting Mr Donachie's evidence. Mr MacCann believed that Mr Donachie had nothing to gain from falsifying the reports or from admitting to have falsified them. Mr Donachie said he drafted the misleading report because Mr Stanley told him the company needed more time to raise funds. The inspector accepted this version of events.
During the years of Bula's adventures in Russia Mr Stanley set up two deals involving Siberian oil fields. In each case Bula entered arrangements with companies which had agreements with Russian companies which had oil licences. In one case the company in the middle was Russian (the Russian Corporation); in the other case the middle company was registered in the British Virgin Islands (Mir Oil). In total, Bula has lost more than £20 million from the two deals. Hardly any oil has been brought to the surface and Bula has no assets in Russia despite its massive outlays.
Arising from its Russian dealings, Bula is involved in legal actions against Mr Stanley, Mir Oil, and Gouldens, the London solicitors which advised Bula in relation to the Russian Corporation deal. Bula is now pursuing deals in Libya, Yemen and Iraq.
