On 15 March, a preliminary court session, presided by Judge Ashkhen Gharslyan, was held in the Anti-Corruption Court in the case of confiscation of property of allegedly illicit origin of the former Chief Compulsory Enforcement Officer, former Deputy of the National Assembly, Mihran Poghosyan and 7 people related to him.

According to the prosecutor’s office, the following is subject to confiscation:

• 15 immovable properties located in the territory of the Republic of Armenia, of which 2 are individual residential houses in Yerevan, 1 garage, 12 public areas, 3 vehicles, and in case of impossibility, their average market value, which is more than 3 billion 502 million 570 thousand AMD, as well as participations in 6 legal entities,
• The right to claim a total of 710 million 839 thousand 400 AMD loans and other receivables provided to individuals and legal entities,
• 465 million 628 thousand 637 AMD as the balance of funds of illicit origin, as well as 6 billion 141 million 24 thousand AMD, which is not justified by the legal income of the person, has an illicit origin and cannot be confiscated.

Tigran Yenokyan, Deputy Head of the Department for Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin, presented the subject and grounds of the lawsuit. He noted that the properties presented in the petition were not justified by the legal income of Mihran Poghosyan, and published their addresses and market values.

“The object of the claim is also the “Porsche Macan” car registered in the name of Mihran Poghosyan’s daughter, which market value is 23 million 100 AMD. Also, the 50 percent share of “Chaikhana 1” LLC, the cottage area in Tsaghkadzor registered under the name of Gagik Badalyan, the market value of which is 182 million AMD, and the area at 2/6 on Zakyan Street worth 225 million 800 AMD. The subject of the claim also includes the 100 percent share of the LLC registered under the name of Artur Tadevosyan, which, according to the competent authority, belongs to Mihran Poghosyan according to the law. “Kecharis Hotel” LLC registered under the name of Eduard Harutyunyan, “Frutimax” LLC registered under the name of Gohar Nazaryan, 100 percent of the shares of “Catherine Group” Co.Ltd registered under the name of Antonio Ricardo Merino, The right to claim the remaining 505 million 839 thousand 400 AMD from the loans provided by Mihran Poghosyan, the right to claim arising from the loan provided by him to “Catherine Group”, which is, in the amount of drams equivalent to 500 thousand USD. In addition, the competent body submitted a request to confiscate 465 million 628 thousand 637 AMD and 6 billion 141 million 24 thousand A from Mihran Poghosyan as the balance of illicit funds, as unidentified or not justifeied by the person’s legal income,” Yenokyan said.

Mihran Poghosyan’s representative, Mary Khachatryan, noted that the proposed monetary obligation of around 6 billion AMD is not based on calculations in any way. According to the lawyer, there is no calculation in the statement of claim, on the basis of which this amount was formed.

“We have the calculation of the expenses, illicit acquisitions, and income defined in the lawsuit by years, but it is not clear which part of it refers to the expenses and the information considered bank secrets. The respondent was also not provided with the information considered bank secrets, because they are encrypted. No matter how much we tried to get technical access to that information, we could not. Even if the subject and basis of the claim are presented, from its content and factual basis, as well as from the calculation based on it, it is at least unclear for the defendant what kind of dram obligation is involved, because in one case illicit acquisition is considered an expense, in another case: not. Here we also have the concept of “balance of funds” in the amount of 465 million AMD, which is completely incomprehensible to the respondent. Specific numbers of expenses and incomes are presented for each year, then why is it mentioned when making the calculation for the next year that Mihran Poghosyan did not have the appropriate funds to make such expenses and they were considered illicit twice. There are questions to which, if the answer is not received, it becomes impossible and limited for the respondent to present any position, to use the right of defense,” Mary Khachatryan said, requesting that clarifications and calculations be provided so that it would be clear for them what kind of dram obligation are talking about. There are questions to which, if the answer is not received, it becomes impossible and limited for the respondent to present any position, to use the right of defense,” said Mary Khachatryan, requesting that clarifications and calculations be provided so that it would be clear for them what kind of dram obligation we are talking about. . that Mihran Poghosyan did not have the appropriate means to make such expenses and they were considered illegal twice. There are questions to which, if the answer is not received, it becomes impossible and limited for the respondent to present any position, to use the right of defense,” said Mary Khachatryan, requesting that clarifications and calculations be provided so that it would be clear for them what kind of dram obligation they are talking about. .

According to Yenokyan, the unavailability of the information, which is considered a bank secret, is the reason that the claim regarding the confiscation of funds is not justified by the calculations of the representative of the respondent.

“For example, it is stated that in 1 year 9 million AMD were spent at the expense of illicit funds, it may consist of 10 thousand different lines (bank transactions/transfers – ed.) and it cannot be included in the statement of claim, but it is present in the materials of the case,” the representative of the prosecutor’s office noted, adding that the information containing bank secrets was provided to the defendant in an Excel file. According to him, it is technically not possible, for example, to describe more than 20,000 transactions in the claim.

Mihran Poghosyan’s representative mentioned that they have been trying for several months through accountants to understand what expenses the basis of the monetary obligation consists of, according to the years. “There should be a basic requirement and in case of its impossibility, it will lead to dram obligation. It should be clear for the defendant from the examination of the grounds of the claim, what he will defend against. In this case, the grounds for the occurrence of the said monetary obligations and the calculation (by years) so that it is clear the sum of which expenses bring the monetary claim of 6 billion.

Thus, the defendant wants to understand what exactly those 6 billion AMD were spent on, besides, why does the Prosecutor’s Office demand to confiscate them in the form of cash?

Tigran Yenokyan noted that the competent body had mentioned the amount of property acquisition in the claim and if it was acquired at the expense of illicit means, there is a basis, and thus the property was considered illicit in its entirety. If the given property was alienated, then the income received from the alienation and sale of the property was considered illicit. And if it was alienated at an extremely low value, then the difference between the purchase of that property and the income received from the alienation was required. “Acquiring and alienating the same property twice in the presented calculation, was not mentioned in one case as money, in the other case as property. We did not request the capitalized cost.”

The representative of the Prosecutor’s Office emphasized once again that no demands for double confiscation were submitted. And 465 million AMD refers to the illicit money accumulated every year.

Respondent Gagik Badalyan’s representative Aram Orbelyan, was interested in the methodology used for the calculation. Because there is a section “other expenses” in the claim, according to which about 41 million AMD should be confiscated.

“In order to include those 41 million AMD in the calculation for 2006, we need to describe at least 1,000 transactions. It is not described, because the competent authority is satisfied with a fixed number of expenses for a specific year. No methodology is needed for that,” Yenokyan said.

The presiding judge Ashkhen Gharslyan noted that the lawsuit was admitted to the proceedings because the contextual conditions were preserved.

“One of the contextual elements is that if a demand for confiscation of money is submitted, the claim must contain the calculation of the confiscation of that money. The Chairman verifies this by reading and familiarizing himself with the content of the claim. A calculation for 465 million AMD and 6 billion AMD has been submitted. It is another matter that the settlement with the composition expected by Ms Khachatryan regarding the transactions, apparently, the settlement for that part was not presented. And regarding as how that expense was generated in general, yes, it is presented,” the judge noted.

Mary Khachatryan mentioned that, first of all, it is not clear to them how these 6 billion AMD were formed over the years. Yenokyan mentioned that if the respondent should have been familiar with the information containing banking secrets, such questions would not have arisen.

Aram Orbelyan had 2 more questions for the representative of the Prosecutor’s Office to clarify, but the latter stated that he would be able to answer them in writing. Tigran Yenokyan submitted 2 more motions, which the court will consider when the defendant receives the clarifications presented by the Prosecutor’s Office.

The court session was postponed.

Yevgenya Hambardzumyan