T.Altangerel, Director of the Policy Implementation Regulation Department at the Interior Ministry, sets the record straight on the Altan Dornod Mongol issue, answering media questions on the Russian-owned company’s case against the Mongolian Government demanding USD1 billion.

Is it true that the court has ruled against our side?

The hearing was held in Frankfurt in May, 2009. The arbiter has not given his decision yet. It is false to claim that any decision has been given in favor of Altan Dornod Mongol.

How long do we have to wait for the decision?

An arbitration court does not work under a specific time frame. Decisions take longer depending on the complexity of the dispute. However, I think we shall hear something soon.

Is it true that the tax amount the company will pay if Mongolia wins will just be enough to cover our expenses?

We have spent MNT5 billion so far on legal costs. Our demand is for MNT 50 billion.

Why was the gold the company kept in Mongolbank sold without his permission?

The director of ADM, S.V.Paushok, made a contract with Mongolbank about keeping, selling and buying gold. We think the company took the step to avoid paying the windfall profits tax. The tax organization found that the gold in Mongolbank had been sold and demanded 68 percent tax. S.V.Paushok and Mongolbank took their dispute to a London court. Then Paushok filed a case against the Government in 2007. Paushok mined 25 tons of gold in Mongolia in more than 10 years. ADM holds 40 licenses. He used the instability of the 1990s to his favor. We may have to revise agreements made with others in those days.

What agreements are you referring to?

Mongolia made cooperation contracts with several countries like Russia, China, and Great Britain to attract foreign investments. For example, the agreement with Russian investors says they will work under the same terms as domestic companies. There is a similar dispute with Darkhan Metallurgy referting to the contract made with China, while Goldman Sachs talks about the contract made with Great Britain. These contracts must be reviewed.

You represent the Government in international arbitration. Is it because you have experience, or just because of the position you hold?

This was not my first case and will surely be not my last. My position does not have anything to do with the arbitration. I worked in the Marubeni case and also in the case between Thermal Station-3 and an Italian company. Both of these cases were settled in our favor. The dispute with the Italian company was settled out of court on terms that were more beneficial to Mongolia.  So I was given this case because of my experience. We need lawyers who can work at international levels.