Other cases of this process
Open all

“All this looks like a Retribution.” The Defendant’s Speech involved in the Episode of Bribery

There are two episodes of bribery in relation to the case of the former Head of Judicial Department and 12 employees of the same institution.

Two defendants are involved in this episode: the former Head of the Department Misak Martirosyan and the Head of the Staff Management of the same institute Angin Ghukasyan. Today, the Criminal Court of Appeal, under the presiding Judge Karine Ghazaryan continued the hearing of the appeal.

Angin Ghukasyan talked about the bribe episode in her speech. She said that in 2010 one of her acquaintances approached her and asked to get work for her son, mentioning that she will express her gratitude as well. “I conveyed her request to the head of the department and I didn’t know how she was supposed to express her gratitude at all, then I received the consent of the head of department. I conveyed that person that the head agreed and represented the conditions, that is the amount of money, etc. In fact, it is contributing to the agreement between an employer and a job seeker”, told the defendant.

She further explained that the candidate applied and took part in the competition on the general basis. Moreover, Misak Martirosyan was on vacation during that stage. Tender commission was formed by the First Deputy Head of the Department, who was unaware of the agreement according to the defendant, and the process was conducted in accordance with the law. Finally, the applicant participated in the competition, passed the exams and became the sole winner.

“Accusing me in receiving bribe in a case when I have done absolutely nothing is wrong. There is an unlawful activity in my actions but there is no bribe”, said the defendant. By starting his speech Misak Martirosyan opposed to Angin Ghukasyan. According to him Angin Ghukasyan has distorted some facts. “There is the testimony of another applicant Davit Davtyan, who has told that he has become the winner of the written competition. Angin Ghukasyan has approached him and asked whether he would like to go to work there, as it is far away. He gave a negative response after which David scored less. In addition, Angin Ghukasyan said nothing about the money, actually she has taken 200 dollars, and has received bijouterie,” told the defendant.

As for the second episode, Angin Ghukasyan told the court that during the next request she immediately told the person about the amount of money being aware of the previous case. “I have passed the request, the head of the department applied to the appropriate body and the person was appointed to the given position,” remembered the defendant.

She assured that her function was merely to take the money and hand it to Misak Martirosyan, and that her actions lack the objective features of receiving bribe.

Angin Ghukasyan also expressed confidence that there has not been any prior agreement between herself and the former head of the department. Judge Vazgen Rshtuni asked: “You have proposed the Head of the Department mentioning that there is a person who is ready to solve the problem, you have taken the money and have handed it over to him. Why isn’t there a prior agreement?” “In such cases it is decided how to distribute money, how the parties are to be involved in the case, but there was no such agreement among us.”

At the end, she expressed the opinion that this was a kind of retribution. “I worked in the Ministry of Sports. After the initiation of the criminal case such a situation arose that I had to write a letter of resignation. Then I applied to H1 TV Company and was quickly accepted, and a few months later they dismissed me learning about the criminal case. Please take into consideration what I have lost and went through when imposing the sentence. I am willing to accept any punishment but not the imprisonment. The problem is not so much in me but the children,” concluded Angin Ghukasyan.

Notably, Angin Ghukasyan has been found guilty in committing the crimes provided by Article 311 (part 3, 2 and 3 points) of the RA Criminal Code. A punishment has been imposed to her by the application of Article 64 of the RA Criminal Code, which is 2 years of imprisonment with confiscation of personal property but not more than 72.280 AMD worth.

Gevorg Tosunyan


Հետևեք մեզ Facebook-ում

  Պատուհանը կփակվի 6 վայրկյանից...   Փակել