On 17 March, the Anti-Corruption Court continued the examination of the claim filed by the General Prosecutor’s Office for confiscation of property of illicit origin against the 3rd President of the Republic of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, and his 2 daughters, Anush Minasyan and Satenik Sargsyan, demanding the confiscation of property of allegedly illegal origin. Judge Ashkhen Gharslyan presided the session.
According to Iravaban.net during the session, the representative of the defendant Vahagn Grigoryan and Amram Makinyan mediated the involvement of a third party who did not submit an independent claim in the case to Araratbank, from which the plaintiff demanded to confiscate the deposit accounts belonging to Serzh Sargsyan and Rita Sargsyan.
Tigran Yenokyan, Deputy Head of the Department for Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin, stated that the plaintiff party is against involving the bank as a third party, but does not mind if the bank is notified. Vahagn Grigoryan wondered what the procedural difference is: whether the bank will be notified or will be involved in the case as a third party.
“I don’t see any circumstances related to the rights and interests of that commercial bank. After the notification, if the commercial bank presents its position, justifications that the case is related to the interests of the bank, and then maybe we won’t be against your petition, Mr. Grigoryan,” Yenokyan said.
Lawyer Amram Makinyan reminded that in the petition of the Prosecutor’s Office on changing the subject of the lawsuit, it is stated that not the amount of the deposit will be confiscated, but the deposit itself. “If we hypothetically accept that the court satisfies your request, the deposit is “registered” in the name of the Republic of Armenia, then does the Republic of Armenia not become a party to the deposit agreement? And Araratbank is the other side. Do not rights and responsibilities arise for Araratbank under these conditions?
Yenokyan insisted that rights and responsibilities will arise between the state and the bank, but this will not affect the bank’s activities within the framework of the deposit agreement. The petitioner believes that the bank itself should present its position on the issue after being notified. “Maybe the commercial bank is not interested at all in who will be the recipient of the deposit.”
Vahagn Grigoryan noticed that the position presented by the plaintiff contradicts the judicial acts adopted by the court in other cases. During the consideration of the claim of the General Prosecutor’s Office regarding the confiscation of property and funds of allegedly illicit origin of the 3rd President Serzh Sargsyan’s brother Lyova Sargsyan and his wife Armine Harutyunyan, the representatives of the respondents presented such a motion, which the court, presided over by judge Karapet Badalyan, satisfied.
“It is not clear to us why the competent authority in another case did not see the problem of notifying at least from the beginning, and in other cases it shows such a position. Although the principle of competition and equality of law may be applicable to the parties in civil proceedings, we continue to argue that the competent authority is not entitled to take the position or approach of a lawyer or a citizen. The position of the competent authority should be unified,” the lawyer noted, adding that the involvement of the third party is not only the problem of the third party, it is also the problem of respondents’, because they may also have questions.
Both the plaintiff and the defendant side remained in the same opinion during and as a result of the 30-minute discussion. The court did not find it appropriate to carry out other procedural actions in the preliminary court session.
The judge mentioned that she will make a decision in the form of a separate act regarding the application of the respondents to involve a third party.
The court session was postponed.
—————————————————– ———————————————-
Let us remind that the Prosecutor’s Office demands to confiscate from Serzh Sargsyan in favor of RA, the deposit of 107 million 998 thousand 657 AMD invested in “Araratbank” Company on 9 February, 2018, as property of illicit origin, and in case of impossibility, the equivalent funds in the deposit account the interest calculated on the available amount.
Interests in the amount of 44 million 280 thousand 352 AMD accumulated on the deposit invested in the same bank. From 11 April, 2022 until the day of the actual execution of the judgment, interest calculated on 44 million 280 thousand 352 AMD in the account of “Ararat Bank” as income from property of illicit origin.
In addition, the plaintiff demands to confiscate from Rita Sargsyan’s heir Satenik Sargsyan, the property belonging to Serzh Sargsyan in the sense of the law, which was invested in Araratbank Company in the name of Rita Sargsyan on 12 February, 2018 and inherited by Satenik Sargsyan the deposit of 95 million AMD and in case of impossibility, to confiscate equivalent funds from Satenik Sargsyan. In the case of Satenik Sargsyan being a bona fide acquirer, confiscate equivalent funds from Serzh Sargsyan.
The interest calculated on the deposit in the amount of 95 million AMD in the specified deposit account in “Araratbank” company from 12 May, 2021 until the day of the actual execution of the judgment, in case of impossibility, to confiscate equivalent funds from Satenik Sargsyan, and in case of her being a bona fide acquirer, to confiscate equivalent funds from Serzh Sargsyan. Interest in the amount of 30 million 435 thousand 975 AMD accumulated on the deposit invested in “Araratbank” on 12 February 2018 in the name of Rita Sargsyan, belonging to Serzh Sargsyan according to the law and transferred to Satenik Sargsyan by inheritance, in case of impossibility, to confiscate equivalent funds from Satenik Sargsyan. On the day of the actual execution of the decision, interest calculated on 30 million 435 thousand 975 AMD in the relevant account of “Araratbank” company, as income from property of illicit origin, in case of impossibility, to confiscate equivalent funds from Satenik Sargsyan, and in case of her being a bona fide acquirer, to confiscate equivalent funds From Serzh Sargsyan.
It is demanded to confiscate from Satenik Sargsyan, as property belonging to Serzh Sargsyan according to the law, the apartment 64 in building 66, Teryan Street, Yerevan, in favor of RA, and in case of impossibility, to confiscate from Serzh Sargsyan the market value of the property: 260 million 900 thousand AMD: the parking lot at address 39 of building 66, Teryan Street, Yerevan in case of impossibility: 10 million 660 thousand drams, the parking lot number 39 of building 66, Teryan Street, Yerevan (ed. both parking lots have number 39), and in case of impossibility, confiscate the market value: 10 million 660 thousand AMD.
The petition proposes to confiscate 165 million 854 thousand 249 AMD from Serzh Sargsyan in favor of the Republic of Armenia as the balance of funds of illicit origin, extending the confiscation also to the funds available in commercial banks in the name of Rita Sargsyan during the joint life, as well as to the funds transferred to Satenik Sargsyan by inheritance. Also 186 million 584 thousand 328 AMD, which is not justified by the legal income of the person, has an illicit origin and cannot be confiscated, because in 2006-2021 was transferred to a bona fide acquirer or it is not possible to identify and confiscate, extending the confiscation again to the funds available in commercial banks under the name of Rita Sargsyan during the joint life, as well as transferred to Satenik Sargsyan by inheritance.
