Russia?s telecommunications minister was secretly named by his own law firm as the true owner of a Bermuda-based mutual fund that has amassed control of a large share of Russia?s mobile-phone industry, according to a filing in a London court.

Leonid Reiman, a longtime close confidant of Russian President Vladimir Putin (pictured), also was described by his own lawyers during a confidential meeting as standing to gain financially from companies since accused of stripping Russian state telecom assets, according to records of the meeting obtained by German prosecutors in a separate criminal investigation.

The developments have prompted the Bermuda fund to abandon its longstanding legal position that Mr. Reiman couldn?t be one of its owners. For years, the fund has claimed its only owner is Mr. Reiman?s onetime lawyer, Jeffrey Galmond. In a sworn affidavit signed last week, a director of the fund, Swiss fiduciary David Hauenstein, said the fund?s board had determined that ?the point has come when it can no longer maintain? that position.

The document disclosures come amid criminal investigations by several countries into the movement of $1 billion or more of Russian telecom assets to the Bermuda fund, through a series of European tax havens, trusts and holding companies. The developments also emerge against a backdrop of mounting concern in Western capitals about perceived abuse of power in Russia.

Mr. Hauenstein?s affidavit said Mr. Galmond?s earlier sworn statements claiming sole ownership of the fund ?could give a misleading impression?. But he added that he doesn?t know for certain whether Mr. Reiman is an owner of the fund, IPOC International Growth Fund Ltd.

In an emailed statement, Mr. Reiman said, ?I have no relation to IPOC,? adding that, while he used Mr. Galmond?s law firm in the 1990s, ?we are not linked by any business relationship at present.? He added that ?it distresses me that because of someone?s poorly thought-out, possibly unprofessional actions, my name is mentioned in a conflict with which I am in no way connected.?

Mr. Galmond, in an interview this week, repeated his assertions that he is the sole owner of the fund and that the telecom minister doesn?t stand to benefit financially from any IPOC-affiliated trusts and companies.

He acknowledged his Denmark-based firm sent a letter to a Liechtenstein bank in June 2002 describing Mr. Reiman as ?the ultimate beneficial owner of IPOC,? as well as ?the economic beneficiary? of some Galmond-controlled companies, but he said the statements were made by his staff in error. Liechtenstein police seized the document from the bank and seized a similar document from a Liechtenstein law firm. The contents of the documents were described in the Hauenstein affidavit, though the documents themselves haven?t been introduced in court.

Mr. Galmond also disputed the accuracy of a 2001 internal memorandum that police seized from the office of Liechtenstein lawyer Daniel Kieber, which is also described in the affidavit. Mr. Hauenstein states that the memo claims Mr. Galmond himself, or one of his partners, ?indicated that Leonid Reiman was the ?economic beneficiary? ? of three different trusts later used to set up IPOC. Mr. Galmond?s legal partner, F. Michael Boemke, who the memorandum said was also at the meeting, declined to comment.

Reached this week, Mr. Hauenstein said his affidavit, signed last Friday, is accurate, but he declined to comment further. It was filed to the Privy Council of the United Kingdom, a civil court.

The fund?s legal retreat also followed the emergence of a previously undisclosed trust that Mr. Galmond set up in 1996 to benefit Mr. Reiman called Meridium. The Hauenstein affidavit alleges that, in meeting with an associate in 2001, Mr. Galmond ?represented Leonid Reiman to be the economic beneficiary of Meridium?.

In at least five depositions or affidavits totalling thousands of pages that Mr. Galmond has filed in the past three years regarding IPOC and Mr. Reiman, he never disclosed the existence of Meridium. In the interview, Mr. Galmond said he had forgotten to disclose the trust and that it never paid any money to Mr. Reiman. At a separate press briefing, he publicly apologised to Mr. Reiman for any embarrassment he has caused Mr. Reiman.

The criminal inquiries grew out of a civil-court dispute between IPOC and Russian conglomerate Alfa Group over ownership of a stake in Russia?s third-largest wireless firm, OAO Megafon. Alfa has claimed in court filings that Mr. Reiman and Mr. Galmond are illicitly depleting Russian state telecom assets to fund a private telecom empire.

Both men have denied the charge. In a 2004 affidavit, Mr. Galmond called allegations of money laundering or other improprieties ?wholly unfounded and untrue?.

In the investigations, authorities in Germany, the US and elsewhere are looking among other things at the role played by Germany?s Commerzbank AG and other financial institutions in those transactions, which could involve money laundering to obscure the origin of the funds.

The Hauenstein affidavit asserts that Commerzbank officials had at least partial knowledge of Mr. Reiman?s financial stake. At one point in the late 1990s, Mr. Galmond has previously testified, he brought Mr. Reiman to a meeting with Commerzbank?s chief executive, where they discussed Russian telecom investments. Subsequently, Commerzbank began to publicly pose as the owner of Russian telecom assets that were secretly controlled by Mr. Galmond and his associates.

Commerzbank has denied doing anything improper, but the new Hauenstein filing states that, in the 2001 law-firm meeting memorandum, one of the participants claimed Commerzbank ?had carried out due diligence on Leonid Reiman as the economic beneficiary?. If true, that could suggest Commerzbank knew it was fronting for Mr. Reiman. A Commerzbank official declined to comment. Mr. Galmond said Mr. Reiman was a potential beneficiary of a trust holding some of those assets, but never received disbursements.