BL-2023-000501 - [2025] EWHC 2334 (Ch)

Fecha: 19-Sep-2025

Discussions about the receipt of the payment

Discussions about the receipt of the payment

47.

Mr Stein’s case is that, after the June 2012 meetings, he was regularly chasing Mr Jaffe regarding payment of the sum agreed. He said that he regularly spoke to Mr Jaffe, such that the significant number of text (etc) messages which have been disclosed in these proceedings does not represent the totality of the communications between the parties, especially on this point.

48.

A small number of emails and text messages among the large number disclosed were referred to at the trial. The key messages were as follows:

On 14 June 2012, Mr Jaffe messaged Ms Gabbert to tell her, ‘Small change. Instead of 2.5m it is going to be 3.5 loan (3 years, 5%). 2m same (plus write off)’.

ii)

On 21 June 2012, after Mr Stein had asked, ‘How is the issue that concerns me?’, Mr Jaffe replied, ‘They are sending it tomorrow. We had to create everything from scratch – did not come from him and does not come to me’. This is clearly a reference to the structuring of the Payment. Mr Stein replied, ‘Fine. It will also not go 2 me. But please let me know some details soon, so that a proper structure can be put in place.’

iii)

On 27 June 2012, Mr Jaffe wrote an email to Mr Stein: ‘Da. Good news and bad news. Money come in. But were sent back because we could not show where it came from. Dealing with it now. Agreed with VV [i.e. Mr Anisimov] on proper solution going forward. Need to solve it short term though. Will call when land in London.

iv)

On 4 July 2012, Mr Jaffe wrote to Mr Stein, saying ‘Got the money!!!’

A few minutes later, he wrote to Mr Stein: ‘Next is funding (I borrow) for suing the Family/Irakli (a lot of shit will float up [in Russian]) – coming soon. And we need to put proposal for funding for Z for 1 year. Full Team in place and set up within 1 month. Then the fun begins.’

vi)

Later that day, after an exchange about where they were to meet in London, Mr Stein wrote: ‘Which money did u get? The second 3.5?’

vii)

Mr Jaffe responded, ‘The first! Once we get the second, we start preparations for case against Family/Irakli. Agreed with Giga. This is going to be huge help for you and all of us. We shall meet for dinner – three of us.’

49.

As I have mentioned, there were discussions between the parties about the Payment around the time when Mr Anisimov indicated that he no longer wished to use Mr Stein’s services. Mr Stein alleges that after Mr Anisimov had terminated the services he was providing, Mr Jaffe promised to pay him the sum of £500,000 when he was able to do so (it also being Mr Stein’s evidence that Mr Jaffe was in some financial difficulty at the time), but that he never did so. Mr Jaffe responds that he agreed to pay this sum ‘if more than $100 million was recovered in the Revoker Proceedings’. Neither side suggests that this was a legally enforceable agreement.

50.

It is Mr Jaffe’s evidence that, in late 2015 or early 2016, Mr Stein accused him of ‘screw[ing] him over in 2012’, having received the USD2 million payment. Mr Stein denies this, and says that he did not learn that the Payment had been received until the Revoker Proceedings were entering the quantum phase.