On 16 March, the Anti-Corruption Civil Court was examining the claim of the Prosecutor General’s Office to confiscate the allegedly illicitly acquired property and income from Vachagan Ghazaryan, the former Deputy Head of the National Security Service (NSS) State Protection Service, and 4 persons related to him. Judge Ashkhen Gharslyan presided the session.

The submitted demand was to confiscate Vachagan Ghazaryan and four related persons in favor of Armenia the following:

• 17 apartments, areas, buildings, parking lots located in Yerevan city, 4 of which are located in Avan administrative district, 5 in Admiral Isakov avenue, 5 in Teryan street, as well as in Aygestan district, Amiryan, Khorenatsi streets, Kotayk marz (Tsaghkadzor community), 1 plot of land in Armavir (Community Artamet) marz, 6 means of transport, and in case of impossibility, the average market value of the listed immovable and movable properties, which is AMD 6,007,193,880in total.
• Right to participate in 8 legal entities,
• The average market value of 6real estates and 4 vehicles in Stepanakert is AMD 337,780,000.
• AMD 137,216,729  as funds and deposits in bank accounts, 
• 743.409.007 AMD, which is not justified by the legal income of the person, has an illicit origin and cannot be confiscated, based on Part 4 of Article 20 of the Law on Confiscationof Property of Illegal Origin.

Total:  AMD 8,225,599,616.

According to Iravaban.net, Mihran Bulghadaryan, the prosecutor of the Department for Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin, submitted to the court a statement on withdrawal from the claim filed against Vachagan Ghazaryan’s daughter.

The Prosecutor’s Office filed a claim against Arev Ghazaryan to confiscate one of the apartments in the Teryan 66 building, as well as her share of the parking lot of the same building. The prosecutor noted that the Prosecutor’s Office obtained additional facts, according to which the mentioned properties were alienated for 45 million AMD in 2014, so the Prosecutor’s Office withdrew the request regarding Arev Ghazaryan.

Judge Ashkhen Gharslyan asked the prosecutor whether the procedural consequences of the administrative action are clear to him. “Is it clear that the proceedings of this anti-corruption civil case regarding the claim submitted against Arev Ghazaryan are subject to termination?” Mihran Bulghadaryan gave a positive reply.

Further the prosecutor asked the court to involve 8 legal entities in the case as the 3rd party.

Varazdat Asatryan, the representative of the defendant, stated that in their opinion, the range of persons whose rights and responsibilities may be affected by this case is larger. “I find that at this stage of the trial, after clarifying the basis and object of the claim, the issue of involvement of third parties should be discussed. And it is possible that we shall submit a similar petition.”

According to the lawyer, in the last part of the subject matter of the lawsuit, the part regarding the monetary claim is still unclear to them. It is not clear on the basis of which calculations the mentioned demand was submitted.

The Judge reminded that during the previous court session, the prosecutor had committed to provide clarifications regarding certain calculations during this court session. Bulghadaryan mentioned that he can present it orally, but he did not present it in writing, because he had to present a motion to involve a new respondent.

Varazdat Asatryan mentioned that it would be correct if the explanations were presented in written form. The lawyer also mentioned that he objects the motion to include a new defendant at this court session. “Respectful Court, the petition is not only about bringing in a new defendant, but also about allowing a change in the basis and subject of the claim. Therefore, time is needed to express a position regarding the presented petition.

The Judge proposed to announce a break for the reasonable use of the trial resource, during which the lawyer will have the opportunity to get acquainted with the mediation, but Varazdat Asatryan noted that they need time to develop tactics and properly act as to justify the claim.

Judge Ashkhen Gharslyan recorded that the issue of postponing the court session would not have been discussed if the prosecutor had previously sent to the defendant the motion to involve a new defendant.

The court decided to postpone the hearing. The court will announce the date of the new court session later.

Yevgenya Hambardzumyan