Temur Akhmedov’s sensational claim to ignorance over the luxury car came as a two-week trial involving Britain’s biggest ever divorce case neared its end
The son of a Russian oligarch who is fighting his mother in the courts as part of Britain’s biggest divorce case has insisted he ‘did not know’ whether he owned a £346,000 Rolls Royce.
Temur Akhmedov’s sensational claim to ignorance over the luxury car came as a two-week trial involving Britain’s biggest ever divorce case neared its end.
The 27-year-old has been taken to court by his mother Tatiana Akhmedova, 48, over claims that he acted as his father’s ‘lieutenant’ and colluded with him to conceal his fortune and ensure that she did not receive a landmark £453 million divorce pay out.
Ms Akhmedova secured Britain’s largest divorce settlement from her ex-husband Farkhad Akhmedov, 64, an oil and gas tycoon, following the end of their 27-year marriage in 2016.
Referring to the Rolls Royce and how his client did not know if he owned it, Robert Levy, QC, said: ‘I can’t understand how these people live, I just don’t get it. But you can’t apply similar thought process to items that they own.’
The Honourable Mrs Justice Knowles added: ‘The ability to itemise when one reaches a certain level of wealth maybe rather difficult.’
Ms Akhmedova’s lawyers claim Temur’s failure to admit to owning the Rolls Royce is just one of a ‘range of other false hoods’ told by him while giving evidence last week, which they listed in a court document.
Ms Akhmedova (left), was married to Russian oil and gas tycoon Farkhad Akhmedov (right) for 27 years. The former couple are now at the centre of Britain’s biggest divorce battle
It stated: ‘That he did not consider himself to be the owner of the Rolls Royce which he had purchased for £346,000, of which he was the registered keeper, which he took back and forth between London and France with him, and which carried his personalised number plate 123 TA.
‘Incredibly, whilst that he was the owner when he bought it, he suggested Farkhad and his wife were the owners.’
Ms Akhmedova’s lawyers described Temur as ‘extraordinarily dishonest, devious and evasive’ while also being a ‘liar’ and a ‘cheat.’
They state: ‘Whilst no mother would ever wish to make such a submission about her child, that is the only available conclusion from the evidence: Temur will lie or cheat whenever he thinks such conduct will benefit him.’
City trader Temur has denied wrongdoing, insisting he did not collude with his father to help him hide his wealth so that Ms Akhmedova could not get her pay out.
The High Court trial has heard sensational details of the unimaginable wealth lavished on Temur and his family’s most intimate secrets.
Ms Akhmedova is pictured with her son Temur in 2014 before their relationship deteriorated
Temur revealed his mother had affairs with two younger men while his father had a relationship with a Russian beauty queen half his age.
At 21, Temur lost £35million of his father’s money investing in stocks and shares and at 19, while a student, he was given a £29million flat.
Temur has maintained the millions of pounds that were given to him by his father were for ‘investment purposes.’
He admitted while giving evidence that he was aware of Mr Akhmedov’s ‘schemes’ to hide his money in offshore bank accounts and trusts but he was not his ‘lieutenant’ and did not make any decisions.
Mr Levy argued: ‘His involvement was never that of a commander and in a sense of the lieutenant being someone who executes orders, in our submission it’s clear that he wasn’t.’
Tatiana Akhmedova (above) was accused of two affairs by her son at London’s High Court
He added: ‘This is a very unhappy case. It’s about a family. It’s a case in which one person, Farkhad, should have paid his wife her matrimonial award. There’s no doubt about that.
‘But Farkhad is the person who has to satisfy that.’
The run-up to the case was overshadowed by claims that Temur deliberately refused to hand over electronic devices and messages that have may have contained vital evidence.
He also submitted an amended witness statement admitting to doing this and apologised to the court while also changing parts of his story.
Closing their case, Ms Akhmedova’s lawyers questioned what was described as Temur’s ‘Come to Jesus’ moment.
They claimed: ‘Subsequent events have, however, confirmed that Temur is willing to engage in the most shameful and dishonest tactics to prevent the truth being revealed.
‘Temur’s strategy in ‘answering’ questions during cross-examination was to evade or, failing that, to lie.’
In his closing remarks, Mr Levy said: ‘It’s a big thing to have confessed to have done something wrong. It’s meant to be good for the soul.
‘It’s better that he (Temur) provided an amended witness statement and when giving evidence, dealt frankly and honestly with his role in his father’s plans.’
The hearing finishes on Friday with a judgment expected in the New Year.