Doc No: Press (Shor)

Press Release (Draft) Rev 1.00

Dated 22 July 2019

nd
Date - 22 July 2019
FAO - Editors and Sub-Editors
Task - Response to recent leak of Kroll II report. James Ramsden QC & Quintel Intelligence

th
The publication of the Kroll 2 report of the 4 July sadly regurgitates the incomplete work exhibited by the first report. The
findings of the initial review conducted by legal counsel in London, still remain, evidenced, definitive and accurate. We
note how the report is again not able to be relied upon beyond its commissioner, the National Bank of Moldova due to the
disclaimer. It’s is unsettling that so much trust is put into repeated assertions that have no evidential value, on the strength
of a baseless declaration of accuracy.

Mr Shor continues to be concerned at the conscious lack of regard to the lengthy and thorough judicial process that has
occurred in Moldova. As mentioned in our previous press statement, the legal team cannot fathom why the convictions of
Messrs Filat and Platon are not considered within the report undertaken by NBM through Kroll. By repeating the
allegations that Shor is the beneficiary of the theft, Kroll appear to directly challenge either the integrity of the court or its
competence. Either way they have unilaterally concluded the court is wrong. We have seen no evidence that this is so.

Kroll note on a number of occasions that they were unable to determine the “end location” of the money trail and that
they will need yet more time for “further disclosure” and to “conduct further investigative work”. Mr Shor sincerely hopes
that having provided no new information, any further investigation will not be carried out by Kroll on the terms related by
Mr Strelet, namely that Kroll would retain 60% of any funds recovered, rather than see those funds returned to Moldova.
We still see no attempt to contact Mr Shor for interview. It again seems curious that the alleged perpetrator of the fraud is
not sought for interview. This is in stark contrast to the Moldovan Prosecutor who as part of their duties considered
detailed witness statements and evidence from all the accused.

Mr Shor now has no option but to independently seek to establish why Kroll has ignored the Moldovan justice system and
intentionally excluded his voice and evidence relevant to his role in their investigation.

London